Madeleine McCann cops ask Home Office for more money to continue search for missing child

Nasher · 17 Mar 2019 at 19:30

TheOracle said:
Doesn't make sense. If it was an accident, why go through with the abduction story?

Parents don't go to jail because of accidents, but they do if they make up an abduction story, wasting millions of tax payers money.

If the death is down to their neglect or they did something illegal which lead to it, then they would probably do jail time. As well as have their other kids taken away.

When you actually read some of the facts about the case it's crazy. They refused to answer a load of questions from the Portuguese police which they say sabotaged the search, just remained silent and then tried to sue the detective for "sabotaging the search". 2 of the initial suspects died (one in a "tractor accident"). Lots of things and statements made by the parents just don't add up.

SexyGreyFox · 17 Mar 2019 at 22:29

BowdonUK said:
I'm just reading this article about the netflix documentary about the case. It shows a list of 48 questions that Kate McCann refused to answer.

She answered all 48 questions the day before when she wasn't a suspect. On the following day she became a suspect and didn't have to answer them.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077813/Rebuttal of "Fact" 20

Sankari · 18 Mar 2019 at 07:21

Roland Butter said:
Is the sniffer dog's thing a matter of record, is there video footage available of their reactions or official, signed and dated testimony of their handlers and witnesses ?

Or is it just mere rumour the woman at the chippy has heard and has since become 100% incontrovertible FACT ?

It's worth noting that the McCanns requested the use of sniffer dogs.

There is footage of the dogs searching the car.

The dogs appeared to pick up something, but police never found any substantiating evidence to confirm a positive result.

Sankari · 18 Mar 2019 at 07:23

Nasher said:
When you actually read some of the facts about the case it's crazy. They refused to answer a load of questions from the Portuguese police which they say sabotaged the search, just remained silent and then tried to sue the detective for "sabotaging the search". 2 of the initial suspects died (one in a "tractor accident"). Lots of things and statements made by the parents just don't add up.

Evidence please.

Meridian · 18 Mar 2019 at 07:25

Nasher said:
When you actually read some of the facts about the case it's crazy.

As has been repeadedly pointed out, pretty much all the "facts" of the case are nothing of the kind. I significant number were strategic leaks from the Portugese police trying to deflect blame from their terrible investigation, and the rest were a mix of wild Press misinterpretation of things they were told and some outright fabrications. Certainly the so-called "forensic" stuff was nonsense - it was not in the format an actual forensic scientist would use, and made no sense.

As people seem to have forgotten, the McCanns sued several papers for libel, and those same papers admitted that they had made most of their stories up. I am reminded of old sayings about lies, truth and boots.

Greebo · 18 Mar 2019 at 12:21

Evangelion said:
It's worth noting that the McCanns requested the use of sniffer dogs.

There is footage of the dogs searching the car.

The dogs appeared to pick up something, but police never found any substantiating evidence to confirm a positive result.

I thought they then went to court to get the sniffer dogs evidence ruled as inadmissible?????

Greebo · 18 Mar 2019 at 12:23

TheOracle said:
Doesn't make sense. If it was an accident, why go through with the abduction story?

Parents don't go to jail because of accidents, but they do if they make up an abduction story, wasting millions of tax payers money.

Depends on the circumstances. If, as rumoured, they drugged their kids while they were out it stops being just an "accident" and then people dont think rationally and one lie leads to the next.

Sankari · 18 Mar 2019 at 12:32

Greebo said:
I thought they then went to court to get the sniffer dogs evidence ruled as inadmissible?????

No. They didn't need to do this in the first place, since the work of cadaver dogs is already inadmissible in court.

The McCanns did express concern about the quality of the search conducted by the dogs' handler, but it was a moot point in the end, because the police found no trace of Madeleine's blood or DNA.

The handler himself said there was no corroborating evidence to support the idea that Madeleine's dead body had been in the car (or around the McCanns' flat).

jsmoke · 18 Mar 2019 at 12:33

Seems a crappy investigation, surely with proper forensics the involvement of the McCain's could have been known. Blood in car, or even reading the mileage done. Must have been plenty of other tests they could have done.

Sankari · 18 Mar 2019 at 12:37

jsmoke said:
Seems a crappy investigation, surely with proper forensics the involvement of the McCain's could have been known. Blood in car, or even reading the mileage done. Must have been plenty of other tests they could have done.

They didn't find any blood in the car, IIRC.

Roland Butter · 18 Mar 2019 at 12:43

jsmoke said:
Seems a crappy investigation, surely with proper forensics the involvement of the McCain's could have been known. Blood in car, or even reading the mileage done. Must have been plenty of other tests they could have done.

I'ts difficult for the investigators, the case starts off as a missing child, then a possible abduction, then maybe the parents are
involved, all this takes place over weeks, the crime scene and other forensic data have long been corrupted or missing.

GGizmo · 18 Mar 2019 at 13:45

SexyGreyFox said:
She answered all 48 questions the day before when she wasn't a suspect. On the following day she became a suspect and didn't have to answer them.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077813/Rebuttal of "Fact" 20

Ok I've just read the link you posted. It doesn't say she answered the 48 questions the previous day. It said that she answered questions all day as a witness. Then the next day as a person of interest she lawyered up and refused to answer the questions. Just because you have the right to not answer questions doesn't mean you need to stay silent.

If she was telling the truth then either as a witness or the arguido status, she should have answered the questions in my opinion. Her main concern should have been about finding Madeleine, not looking out for herself. The only place I would give her the benefit of doubt is that maybe she was going to tell the truth but got scared by this government person of the Media Monitoring Unit, Clarence Mitchell. How many other Brits abroad dealing with the police get sent a government official as their lawyer?

I've not read the books they have written since all this. But there is nothing stopping her today from answering those 48 questions. I'm not sure if she as or not. But today there is no fear of arquido.

jsmoke · 18 Mar 2019 at 13:58

Am I right in saying that Madeleine went to a kids club at around 5-6pm and there are reliable witnesses to comfirm this, otherwise from what I can make out she could have been missing from around 7.30am to 22.00 that day?

Greebo · 18 Mar 2019 at 15:09

Evangelion said:
No. They didn't need to do this in the first place, since the work of cadaver dogs is already inadmissible in court.

The McCanns did express concern about the quality of the search conducted by the dogs' handler, but it was a moot point in the end, because the police found no trace of Madeleine's blood or DNA.

The handler himself said there was no corroborating evidence to support the idea that Madeleine's dead body had been in the car (or around the McCanns' flat).

I thought it was inadmissible but pretty sure from memory the McCanns went to court and spent a serious wad of money to get the cadavar dog evidence ruled out of the investigation by the Portugese police?

Sankari · 18 Mar 2019 at 16:00

Greebo said:
I thought it was inadmissible but pretty sure from memory the McCanns went to court and spent a serious wad of money to get the cadavar dog evidence ruled out of the investigation by the Portugese police?

Got a source for this? As I understand it, the facts are these:

* cadaver dogs had a reaction to the car
* no trace of Madeleine's blood or DNA was found
* the dog handler noted that there was no corroborating evidence to support the idea that Madeleine's dead body had been in the car (or around the McCanns' flat)
* experienced British murder squad officers advised that sniffer dogs cannot replace detective work, and their reactions do not constitute evidence
* the McCanns expressed concern about the quality of the search conducted by the dogs' handler, and also argued that the cadaver dogs' work is inadmissible in court
* the McCanns' legal team cited the case of Eugene Zapata, where a judge dismissed the results of cadaver dog work because it was wrong more than 70% of the time

I certainly don't recall the McCanns going to court and spending a serious wad of money to get the cadaver dog work ruled out. I am pretty confident that this never happened.

Greebo · 18 Mar 2019 at 16:10

Evangelion said:
Got a source for this? As I understand it, the facts are these:

* cadaver dogs had a reaction to the car
* no trace of Madeleine's blood or DNA was found
* the dog handler noted that there was no corroborating evidence to support the idea that Madeleine's dead body had been in the car (or around the McCanns' flat)
* experienced British murder squad officers advised that sniffer dogs cannot replace detective work, and their reactions do not constitute evidence
* the McCanns expressed concern about the quality of the search conducted by the dogs' handler, and also argued that the cadaver dogs' work is inadmissible in court
* the McCanns' legal team cited the case of Eugene Zapata, where a judge dismissed the results of cadaver dog work because it was wrong more than 70% of the time

I certainly don't recall the McCanns going to court and spending a serious wad of money to get the cadaver dog work ruled out. I am pretty confident that this never happened.

You are indeed correct. It was just their legal team putting out rebuttals and spending time on discrediting the dogs in case it went to court. The odd thing is though the McCanns chose to leave the day the dogs arrived despite knowing they were coming.

Sankari · 18 Mar 2019 at 16:20

Greebo said:
You are indeed correct. It was just their legal team putting out rebuttals and spending time on discrediting the dogs in case it went to court.

They didn't 'spend time on discrediting the dogs', they simply consulted a particular ruling and reiterated it. They didn't need to 'discredit the dogs', because the dogs' response wasn't admissible in the first place.

The odd thing is though the McCanns chose to leave the day the dogs arrived despite knowing they were coming.

Why is that odd? There was no requirement for them to be there. What would be the point of staying?

SexyGreyFox · 18 Mar 2019 at 23:12

Evangelion said:
The dogs appeared to pick up something, but police never found any substantiating evidence to confirm a positive result.

The BBC also showed film of the sniffer dog 'seeking out' Cuddle Cat but it only responded to Cuddle Cat when it was shown to the dog and then he took no notice of it.
At the time it was claimed the dog went straight to Cuddle Cat.

NVP · 23 Mar 2019 at 19:56

But... what about the fridge?!

Ayahuasca · 23 Mar 2019 at 21:02

Watched the Netflix series and wish I hadn’t bothered, as now I’ll have to put up with the brain dead sheep at work, still spewing the “Kate is emotionless”, “Gerry used his surgical skills to discard the body” nonsense. This is from people who claim to have watched every episode themselves and done their own “research” outside of it also.

The main thing the series highlighted was just how inept the Portuguese police were and how much money was wasted with con men and others trying to make a quick buck/get a name for themselves.