Alternative Title

Yeah, fair comment. I was being ironic with the guy, don't like being called a weirdo, and I'm sure others don't too.

Nah, I just read this book. It's only available online in the UK, for some reason someone doesn't want it published here.. http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/Goncalo Amaral - Truth of the Lie - Madeleine McCann.pdf

Pretty poor show really. Can I blame predictive text? https://www.glasgowcomascale.org/

"Until the golf course is shut", surely?

Almost as fucking weird as having a thread on the topic in the first place. If it's any comfort, I was pleased with Hibs performance against Newcastle the other night. Scott Allan is looking good. Newcastle were miles better though, but despite Joelinton looking a good signing , I reckon they are for the drop. Don't worry I'm one of the gang, can't stand people who push from the back though to ingratiate themselves to others though. Actually, commenting on other people's motivation for posting is really weird. It makes you sound slightly moralistic, or narrow minded. I'm not quite sure.

I think the thing about this case is that all theories were explored by the Portuguese, with assistance from Scotland Yard. It was SY, who have the largest database of missing kids in the world, who advised to look at the parents in the July. This led to the dogs being brought over from South Yorkshire Police. It was the dogs alerts and the DNA found that were the catalyst for questioning then effectively under caution What is the mystery to me, is how they were able to leave the country when it was pretty obvious they were conspiring to obstruct the investigation. Maybe someone high up in Portugal didn't think it was worth the hassle they'd get from someone high up in Britain? They may well have been the price of something else that Portugal needed from Britain in the lead up to the Lisbon treaty. What is known is that Operation Grange had ruled out the wandering off theory as implausible, in light of everything else they know. Ps, only two couples were doing the checking. One couple had a baby monitor, the other had the father at home.

Titter ye not, it's still on the front page of the official find Madeleine site. There is a cockamenny statement along the lines that this man has not officially been confirmed as the man Jane saw. So now there are two men carrying children at the same time. Although Gerry saw nobody and Jane only saw one. Still very quiet on the Smith sighting, and Smithman is not even on the front page. Instead he makes up an ID parade of the most unlikely looking artists impressions ever. Clearly they would rather we spoke about Tannerman than Smithman.

Rather than debate what might have happened if there was no abduction. What evidence is there that an abduction took place? I don't think it is entirely reliable to go by the timeline provided. The last independent siting was 17:30. I think it was Oldfield who did the 21:30 check, yet he says he did not see Madeleine, as he didn't look. He would still have to get the child out in a two minute window, allowing for Gerry charting to Jez Wilkins on the way back, and the time that Jane Tanner spotted a man carrying a child. I am not a fan on speculating on their personality, however, I think they were more confident they could carry off the abduction story and thought it was a risk worth taking. I base this on the cock sure attitude from Gerry that suggests a man who looks down on other people as inferior However, that is not good enough to prove anything. What was required was a proper interrogation after the Cadaverine and the DNA was discovered Do they really suggest that Portugal would fit them up with the British media watching?

Oh dear.

Ok, I thought you said there was absolutely no evidence of drugging, sorry. I suppose the motivation for staging a kidnap would be to save their reputation and a possible prison sentence? You'd have to ask them. I am not a doctor, and I am not one of the McCanns, I can't tell you how or when you would give drugs. Bear in mind the last sighting of Madeleine was at 5:30. That gives four and a half hours for different scenarios to develop. Regarding cause of death, it's suggested she fell off the sofa, banged her head, and possibly died of a haemorrhage, causing minimal bleeding out of the ear. This is based on the splatter pattern on the wall, and blood underneath a floor tile. Other than that you are just mocking, and accepting their version of events without question. It might help you if you learned more about high functioning psychopaths, then you could see if they fit the bill. Meantime, can you tell me how the abductor managed to do the deed? (I can guess which points you will respond to.)

The McCanns, of course, case closed! Of course there is more evidence than a couple of dogs barking (see what he did there?) Dogs who got it right 200 times out of 200 up until then. Then there is the pesky DNA in the flat and the hire car (result of bodily fluid, consistent with a body defrosting.) And there is the fact that it took them three attempts to come up with a time line. And that they refused to co operate with police. And that they have used the fund to promote their bollocks version of events ever since, repeating lies and suing anybody who dares to question their version of events. Now, how did the abductor do the deed in a window of less than two minutes again?

With respect, there is no army of people, Operation Grange is down to two people, they have been at the job for seven years and have yet to come up with anything. At least one person knows what happened, it's a case of identifying them. I tend to follow the hypothesis of Goncalo Amaral who was the chief investigating officer on the case. I think he is as much an expert as a bunch of plods from the Met on a busman's holiday. There's a link to the book below, and he explains why he believes that the child died by accident, and this was covered up by her parents. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and any flaws you can see in his argument. I agree, but I think the dog was named after the University. I provided better links lower down just in case. OK, all the other doctors that have killed people, but never faced trial then? No need for the hot shot jibe, you were the guy that said there was absolutely no evidence of poisoning - you said it with the certainty of, well, a hot shot on the case. I merely offered up information to save you the embarassment of repeating your mistake in future, namely that the girl's mother, a trained anaesthetist (sp?) thought the kids had been drugged. The best hypothesis I can offer you is the book by Goncalo Amaral, The Truth of the Lie, which is based on the extensive documentation released by the Policial Judicial in 2008. as well as his own recollections of the case, and a reflection on the way it was handled by the British Media. McScam tried to do him for libel, but the Portuguese Supreme Court found in his favour. Good job, as they had set out to ruin him. The book is available elsewhere in Europe, but English versions are only available online. http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/ It's easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled.

Or Dr. Harold Shipman? Although they do ask for peer reviewed research when it suits their agenda of rubbishing things they don't want to hear. Who said anything about guilt? Edit: your mate said there was no evidence that the kids were drugged, and I put you straight in my first sentence. However if you are happy that they continue to enjoy their liberty without these pertinent questions being answered, you are welcome to what you think is normality. When, faced with incontestable evidence the usual McCann tactic is to question the sanity or morality of the person delivering it. You are definitely on message with that, but black marks for not realising that Kate had admitted in her book "madeleine" that she thought the kids were drugged. While you are here, would you mind telling me how the abductor managed to drug the children, and get out of a window that is not large enough for a man to get through, without leaving any forensic trace? If arrested, I take it he will be innocent until proved guilty also. As, there is a cast iron defence built up, which would implicate the parents.

Well, Kate said she thought the kids had been drugged, although she didn't think it worthwhile getting them checked for some reason. It was noted that both twins were unresponsive throughout all the coming and going. Of course had she had them checked we would know for certain . Just one thing. Why would a trained anaesthust not be worried about their children being unresponsive (Glasgow Coma Scale 15) and find out why as a matter of urgency? Either she knew what they had ingested, and that's a matter for the police; or, she and the other doctors in the party are guilty of incompetence, and that's a matter for the GMC. Remember, the reason they were all so cold and collected was "because of their medical training." By the way, one packet of Diazepam hardly constitutes a travelling pharmacy. It's frightening the way people are prepared to distort facts, rather than look at the glaring evidence in front of them. It's almost as if you are members of some crazy religious sect that expects you to accept all you are told without question.

Care to explain the presence of MI5, the British Ambassador (not Consul) and the Givernment dispatching Clarence "The Fireman" Mitchell to manage media relations. Not to mention Broon toeing his colours to the mast early on, only to scarper when it became obvious he'd backed a couple of wrong 'uns ?

I said "starting off point". Agreed though, not worth much. This might be a better place to start. http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Cadaver_dogs Soprano, K.; Miklósi, Á.; Topál, J.; Csányi, V. Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) Responsiveness to Human Pointing Gestures. J. Comp. Psychol. 2002, 116 (1), 27–34. Rooney, N. J.; Gaines, S. A.; Bradshaw, J. W. S.; Penman, S. Validation of a Method for Assessing the Ability of Trainee Specialist Search Dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 103 (1–2), 90–104. Rebmann, A.; David, E.; Sorg, M. H. Cadaver Dog Handbook: Forensic Training and Tactics for the Recovery of Human Remains; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2000. Whether or not these are Harvard referenced doesn't distract from the fact that the dogs are used in court cases throughout the world. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5883.0 Readers might find this useful, particularly the link to the official Portuguese police file. http://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html?m=1 As always the British media is interesting in how they report. https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id157.htm Hope that goes some way to questioning the notion that the dogs are wrong "all the time." A popular mantra from Team McCann in their relentless pursuit of anything that can distort the facts of the case. We also see the rubbishing of any expert who does not have good news for them in the suggestion that their handler "led" them. If you watch the videos, that is very questionable. For the dogs to give false alerts as many times in as many different locations as they did is not probable. It is much more likely that they did detect death in the apartment, in the hire car, and on Kate's clothes. Something that is supported by the discovery of DNA in those locations also.

I think the phrase you were searching for is "incrrrredibly unreliable." Sadly courts of law don't accept Gerry's view of the reliablility of these dogs, particularly as in the case he cited, it was later shown that the dogs had it right. If they were as unreliable as you suggest, then convictions like that of David Gilroy, would surely be unsafe. Instead, the alert of the dog was part of the case against him, and was vital given the lack of any body being found. Academic research on the subject is available here, and is a useful starting off point: https://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf However, can I respectfully point out that it wasn't the dogs that analysed the DNA,, it was a lab?

So, just how did the abductor manage to get in and out of the apartment in the time window of 2 minutes? This involved drugging three children, lifting one up, and exiting through a window that is not wide enough for a grown man to get through. All achieved without any alarm from the kids, and no fibres left on the window ledge. And why did the parents tell everyone that he had jemmied the window to get in, only to change their story when it was pointed out there was no evidence of forced entry?

DNA was found. This was enough to bring the parents in for questioning The fact they didn't co operate with the investigation speaks volumes, as does fleeing the country . I haven't seen any evidence of glee. Good try though, maybe time to move on to bad mouthing Portugal.

A common misconception. There were 15 out of 19 allelles, which is enough to convict in a British court. But, yes, the dogs can hardly stand up in court. The fact that the probability that they alerted wrongly is minute though.

There are plenty of credible shreds such as the cadaver dog alerts. There is no evidence of an abduction other than the word of the two prime suspects.

He was certainly someone who had a lot to gain by playing up the notion that paedophile gangs go stealing children. Madeleine's disappearance was a chance for him to promote his services. He wasn't involved as an investigative officer, which is just as well. As he allowed the McScams to go for dinner at Clement Freud's house. Freud was a nonce. There is a strong suspicion that it was Jim who supplied Gerry with the FBI manual on abducted children. If that's true, what a great guy undermining fellow officers in the Portuguese force.

Wish someone would tell the British MSM. He was actually a consultant to the McCanns, appears to have gotten himself out there right at the start, and made a name for himself on the back of it. I was astounded that he actually got involved in a Twitter spat, calling people armchair detectives. He did not see the irony in that the whole affair blew up because McCann of the Yard was allowed to dictate the entire police investigation. If they are ever charged, Jim might have some questions to answer about his involvement. Not sure if he's running scared or just an egotistical dick.

Unquestionably. ***s are utterly obsessed by child abuse. Absolute no-righters. Never been any evidence of that. How can an analysis of what the media printed by libellous? It's more likely to be because Goncalo Amaral wrote the foreword, his book is banned in the UK, even though McScams got their arse whipped when they tried to sue him in Portugal. Had the audacity to express an opinion on the findings of the police investigation. LOL, Reis said on Twitter that they will never reinstate the book. He has arranged an online distributor, but obviously censorship by Amazon/Carter-f**k is going to drastically impact on its reach. Meanwhile, "Top Cop", Jim Gamble is calling anyone on #mccann that questions the events a troll. Worried about the impact on the twins, but not able to give any examples of the "vile online abuse", same old, same old. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/782147/madeleine-mccann-2019-disappearance-news-detective-slams-trolls-missing-parents-latest

Been removed from Amazon, due to complaints from lawyers. What are they so scared of?