B
Big Tone
The phrase "barking up the wrong tree" springs to mind...
The Maddy Circus rolls on.
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
Barking mad in your case.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
Couple the cadaver and blood dog with 15 marker DNA evidence and the McCanns should be in the dock. The death sentence in the USA only requires 13 markers. What are Scotland Yard waiting for? Don't they have a reputation to keep up?
A human has about 5 million scent receptors. A bloodhound has 300 million.
And a dogs brain has 40% more brain power devoted to analyzing smells.
It's been estimated that dogs can identify smells somewhere between 1,000 to 10,000 times better than nasally challenged humans can.
And a dogs brain has 40% more brain power devoted to analyzing smells.
It's been estimated that dogs can identify smells somewhere between 1,000 to 10,000 times better than nasally challenged humans can.
Watching the videos the dogs don't even clearly indicate a cadaver. The handler says the cadaver dog will pick up both cadaver scent and also blood scent. Therefore the procedure is to search with a cadaver dog and then repeat the search with a blood dog. A cadaver indication is the first search result minus the second.
After the cadaver search the handler says that the apartment has been closed up and is very warm. He says the scent will travel around the apartment and tend to concentrate in corners where there is less air movement. Therefore the area the dog indicates on is not necessarily the source of the scent.
The only positive source was behind the sofa. The handler said the area in the bedroom was less clear and is most likely just transferred scent. The blood dog also indicated behind the sofa but not in the bedroom. Which reinforces that the cadaver dog indication in the bedroom was just transferred scent. It also confirms that the source behind the sofa is in fact blood - not cadaver.
After the cadaver search the handler says that the apartment has been closed up and is very warm. He says the scent will travel around the apartment and tend to concentrate in corners where there is less air movement. Therefore the area the dog indicates on is not necessarily the source of the scent.
The only positive source was behind the sofa. The handler said the area in the bedroom was less clear and is most likely just transferred scent. The blood dog also indicated behind the sofa but not in the bedroom. Which reinforces that the cadaver dog indication in the bedroom was just transferred scent. It also confirms that the source behind the sofa is in fact blood - not cadaver.
I'm only going on what the dog handler says in the commentary. To be fair the bloke waffles a lot and contradicts himself several times. But the nuts and bolts are that the cadaver dog picks up both blood and cadaver scent and can't distinguish between them. So the blood dog is needed to separate blood from cadaver. The bloke definitely says the area in the bedroom was vague and is more likely to have been carried there on air currents not an actual source. The only other source is behind the sofa which was strongly indicated by the blood dog. So it's quite clearly blood and not cadaver. The McCann woman probably just said what she did off the top of her head. I doubt she'd really analysed it.
I'm not an apologist for the McCanns. For what it's worth I personally I don't understand why the McCanns have never been properly questioned about leaving the kids on their own in that apartment. It doesn't wash with me that thousands of people do it. I've been abroad myself with my own kids when they were very young and we never once left them on their own. It's unthinkable to me and I don't understand why they couldn't have just had them with them. But I can't believe they harmed her for the reasons I gave. I just can't see how the others wouldn't know and if they knew they wouldn't be able to hide it.
I'm not an apologist for the McCanns. For what it's worth I personally I don't understand why the McCanns have never been properly questioned about leaving the kids on their own in that apartment. It doesn't wash with me that thousands of people do it. I've been abroad myself with my own kids when they were very young and we never once left them on their own. It's unthinkable to me and I don't understand why they couldn't have just had them with them. But I can't believe they harmed her for the reasons I gave. I just can't see how the others wouldn't know and if they knew they wouldn't be able to hide it.
B
Big Tone
Yes, it's implausible, just like the decades of doubters over man landing on the moon. The Americans aren't the best at keeping secrets, so given the scale of it and numbers involved there would have been someone 'in the know' who would have grassed. But all there has ever been are conspiracy theorists; like we have here..
There were only nine people involved, how would they be in the position of knowing what exactly went on in the apartment ?
They were in the restuarant
They were in the restuarant
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
The way it could have happened is this:
Maddie is a 'difficult' child. They decide to sedate her with prescription drugs.
They come back to apartment and find her dead.
Kate goes racing to the Tapas bar shouting,"They've taken Maddie" (aliens?)
That is the first the Tapas 7 know about it.
She then goes back to the apartment and phones a school mate, then calls Sky News, then someone calls the Police.
Do they go looking for her? Do they fook, they work hard.
Maddie is a 'difficult' child. They decide to sedate her with prescription drugs.
They come back to apartment and find her dead.
Kate goes racing to the Tapas bar shouting,"They've taken Maddie" (aliens?)
That is the first the Tapas 7 know about it.
She then goes back to the apartment and phones a school mate, then calls Sky News, then someone calls the Police.
Do they go looking for her? Do they fook, they work hard.
S
Sombrero
The way it could have happened is this:
Maddie is a 'difficult' child. They decide to sedate her with prescription drugs.
They come back to apartment and find her dead.
Kate goes racing to the Tapas bar shouting,"They've taken Maddie" (aliens?)
That is the first the Tapas 7 know about it.
She then goes back to the apartment and phones a school mate, then calls Sky News, then someone calls the Police.
Do they go looking for her? Do they fook, they work hard.
Joe, "the way it could have happened" is this.... you flew over there, saw the patio door open, stole Maddie and you have her in your cellar.
The authorities have all the available evidence, and all the available legal knowledge... you only have a subsection of those...
You should stop accusing people of things until you're 100% sure and wait for a court to judge.
As for the dog, yes, billions of smell sensors, but what if the dog thought "fook it", I smell sausages, I don't care if it's the "blood" tail wag?
Dogs are faithfull, great at smelling but they're stupid... a good support to other evidence, but shouldn't be your only argument Joe !!
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
It's you that's stupid, not the dogs. Dogs are unbiased. You think the McCanns are innocent - but a dog doesn't care because it doesn't know what innocent or guilt is.
If you were in a foreign land in a dodgy hotel that collapsed and trapped your kids and rescue dogs were available to help locate them, would you say:
"Yes please."
Or
"Nah they'll only wag and bark and go looking for sausages".
So which is it?
If you were in a foreign land in a dodgy hotel that collapsed and trapped your kids and rescue dogs were available to help locate them, would you say:
"Yes please."
Or
"Nah they'll only wag and bark and go looking for sausages".
So which is it?
S
Sombrero
Actually Joe, maybe it's time to stop being respectful, and react to your comments in kind.... you are a fookin knob.
A dog is not unbiased... put it in front of two people, one with a sausage, and one with a housebrick.. the dog will favour the sausage. Plus dogs are stupid, that's why not many dogs are barristers.
I've had many stances during this harrowing case, my current stance in NOT that the McCanns are innocent, it is let's put effort in to find Maddie, and then look at the evidence to punish the guilty... whether that be a spanish paedo ring, the McCanns, or you Joe.
Joe a debate is an evolution of facts you share and learn from and formulate a better argument.... yet you put your stick in the sand and just shout louder - that's not an act of an intelligent person is it Joe?
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- penfold46
- General Discussion
