Rico Sorda - A Mirror Image

Don't forget about the 60 teeth that were found in the cellar....the same cellar that had an incinerator.



Also, just because their was no 'matter' found In jersey doesn't mean that the dogs didnt detect cadaver scent which may off been on something that was attached to the smell they found.

ELI wrote:

Anthony78 wrote:The blog reads sensational but I remember this case when they said they were digging up dead bodies and a blood stained bath due to Eddie the dog running a mock again and barking all the time like in Portugal but they uncovered nothing. The dog has a lot to answer for.

I’m not certain which dogs were used in Jersey, whether it was Eddie or Keela or both. But these dogs are able to detect traces so minute that forensic analysis is not always able to confirm the biological material. This is what happens when you have a dog that detects scents in places and on objects on a molecular level. All dogs have this ability but what you have to remember with these two dogs and other similar dogs is that they are trained scent discrimination dogs, this means they will only locate the target scent they are either specifically trained to find or the target scent they are given to find. Samples taken as a result of the dog’s detections may not always yield forensic results but this does not mean the dogs are wrong, though like everything else on this planet, even machines, there has to be a margin of error. However their natural instinct and ability is hard to defeat as proven by the sheer number of operational successes along with training records which are all recorded in order to prove their reliability and credibility.

Eli, excellent post.

And what bunk all that "ask the dogs" business is anyway.

They are indicative and help guide lines of enquiry, rather than being the sole plank of any investigation.

So even if what they indicate isn't, of itself, Evidence, it certainly points the way.

The trolls seem to think that, if the dogs' evidence can be discounted, it will clear the McCanns of any suspicion of wrong-doing. There are so many things they have said and done that point towards the unescapable conclusion that they're not being honest with us.

I'm not sure if "trolls" and "thinking" is a contradiction in terms!

The night Maddie went missing Gerry wanted sniffer dogs bought in to help the search so he knows how good these dogs can be.

And when Eddie and Keela pointed to the Mcs guilt they clearly believed the dogs too, because they gave us an excuse as to why that odour was found - Kate signing all those death certificates.

All that's needed is to ascertain if Kate did indeed sign all those death certificates, whilst wearing her pants of ganga and rubbing cuddle cat all over the bodies. Funny though, there's never been confirmation of such bizarre behaviour.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:The trolls seem to think that, if the dogs' evidence can be discounted, it will clear the McCanns of any suspicion of wrong-doing. There are so many things they have said and done that point towards the unescapable conclusion that they're not being honest with us.

I'm not sure if "trolls" and "thinking" is a contradiction in terms!

Without doubt it's the subject guaranteed to bring out the most troll activity. The 'official' line as expounded by The Guardian and the rest of the pro-establishment media never ever mentions the dogs. The dogs' failure rate is zero and all attempts to rubbish their findings don't find sufficient public acceptance; therefore feed the pro-establishment media the official line and make certain that they do not mention the dogs at all, whilst at the same time disrupting any Internet sites which do. They really do believe that by persistently not mentioning the dogs they will quasi cease to exist. Will this tactic work or is it working? No, because contrary to what the PR people think, the public are not that stupid.

Who is this "THEY" though T4two?

And why should, why does the mainstream media follow their instructions?

Wallflower wrote:Who is this "THEY" though T4two?

And why should, why does the mainstream media follow their instructions?

They are the establishment which includes the majority of British media publications. They dislike certain people of whom Desmond is one (Al Fayed is another for example). They will do anything to attack such people. If that means supporting the McCanns - if it hurts Desmond, so be it. This very same establishment has always been supportive of the McCanns however - because the McCanns have had the backing of certain people right from the start and 'they're our kind of people'. Whatever is now said - the establishment cannot go back on this support i.e. the establishment has a problem with being proved wrong. Since large sections of the media are establishment - that PR 'genius' the ambulance chaser or 'Coffin' as Blacksmith calls him, can put out the most ridiculous misinformation - they will print it. Ignoring the subject of the dogs is part of the PR strategy which is instigated via the establishment press. Hence the press print nothing about the dogs in connection with the McCann case. Not instructions - part of a mutual strategy.

T4two wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Who is this "THEY" though T4two?

And why should, why does the mainstream media follow their instructions?

They are the establishment which includes the majority of British media publications. They dislike certain people of whom Desmond is one (Al Fayed is another for example). They will do anything to attack such people. If that means supporting the McCanns - if it hurts Desmond, so be it. This very same establishment has always been supportive of the McCanns however - because the McCanns have had the backing of certain people right from the start and 'they're our kind of people'. Whatever is now said - the establishment cannot go back on this support i.e. the establishment has a problem with being proved wrong. Since large sections of the media are establishment - that PR 'genius' the ambulance chaser or 'Coffin' as Blacksmith calls him, can put out the most ridiculous misinformation - they will print it. Ignoring the subject of the dogs is part of the PR strategy which is instigated via the establishment press. Hence the press print nothing about the dogs in connection with the McCann case. Not instructions - part of a mutual strategy.

But what if SY see through the scam and want to bring charges?

T4two wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Who is this "THEY" though T4two?

And why should, why does the mainstream media follow their instructions?

They are the establishment which includes the majority of British media publications. They dislike certain people of whom Desmond is one (Al Fayed is another for example). They will do anything to attack such people. If that means supporting the McCanns - if it hurts Desmond, so be it. This very same establishment has always been supportive of the McCanns however - because the McCanns have had the backing of certain people right from the start and 'they're our kind of people'. Whatever is now said - the establishment cannot go back on this support i.e. the establishment has a problem with being proved wrong. Since large sections of the media are establishment - that PR 'genius' the ambulance chaser or 'Coffin' as Blacksmith calls him, can put out the most ridiculous misinformation - they will print it. Ignoring the subject of the dogs is part of the PR strategy which is instigated via the establishment press. Hence the press print nothing about the dogs in connection with the McCann case. Not instructions - part of a mutual strategy.

The trouble is, that I can think of no other issue which has caused the media to present such a cohesive, united front. Even when this country has gone to war, and you would expect the media to be at its mot jingoistic, there has been more attempt at reporting the "other side" IMO. Whereas in this case, as it has been pointed out many times on these forums, the press has airbrushed the dogs totally out of the picture, Amaral's words don't get reported (on the contrary, he gets misquoted as swearing) and the Gaspars have NEVER been mentioned at all. For a paper like The Guardian, which isn't usually afraid to go out on a limb to print a worthy story or to give a completely different pov to the other papers, to meekly follow Clarence's lead with the utter drivel that Roy Greenslade comes out with is bizzare.

Regarding Richard Desmond: Is there actually anything good to say about him? I can't blame anyone for holding him in contempt, as his paper is the biggest pile of poo poo on the newspaper stands, and that's saying something.

Oldartform wrote:

T4two wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Who is this "THEY" though T4two?

And why should, why does the mainstream media follow their instructions?

They are the establishment which includes the majority of British media publications. They dislike certain people of whom Desmond is one (Al Fayed is another for example). They will do anything to attack such people. If that means supporting the McCanns - if it hurts Desmond, so be it. This very same establishment has always been supportive of the McCanns however - because the McCanns have had the backing of certain people right from the start and 'they're our kind of people'. Whatever is now said - the establishment cannot go back on this support i.e. the establishment has a problem with being proved wrong. Since large sections of the media are establishment - that PR 'genius' the ambulance chaser or 'Coffin' as Blacksmith calls him, can put out the most ridiculous misinformation - they will print it. Ignoring the subject of the dogs is part of the PR strategy which is instigated via the establishment press. Hence the press print nothing about the dogs in connection with the McCann case. Not instructions - part of a mutual strategy.

But what if SY see through the scam and want to bring charges?

For SY to bring charges they would have to have an indisputable case i.e. a raft of solid evidence. It isn't enough to see through a scam, it has to be proven. IMO the Portuguese police are far from being the incompetent fools that some would have us believe. Therefore the chances of SY coming up with sufficient evidence to make an indisputable case are very very slim indeed. Likewise, newspapers cannot print the kind of conjecture in which we indulge without the very real risk of libel action and massive financial consequences, simply because nothing can be proven and probably never will be; there is simply insufficient evidence. Combine this with the establishment belief that the poor grieving parents are the victims of firstly, a 'bungling' and 'corrupt' foreign police force which tried to cover up a flawed investigation, secondly a sensationalist and irresponsible tabloid press which repeatedly libelled them by accusing them of murdering their daughter without a shred of evidence and thirdly a horde of 'Internet scum' who continue to persecute them without a 'shred of evidence' either and you have a complete impasse. Without sufficient evidence SY will not be able to bring charges; equally they will not be able to exonerate the parents either. The investigative review will therefore probably never be concluded and the case remain unsolved. See my signature.

[quote="T4two]

For SY to bring charges they would have to have an indisputable case i.e. a raft of solid evidence. It isn't enough to see through a scam, it has to be proven. IMO the Portuguese police are far from being the incompetent fools that some would have us believe. Therefore the chances of SY coming up with sufficient evidence to make an indisputable case are very very slim indeed. Likewise, newspapers cannot print the kind of conjecture in which we indulge without the very real risk of libel action and massive financial consequences, simply because nothing can be proven and probably never will be; there is simply insufficient evidence. Combine this with the establishment belief that the poor grieving parents are the victims of firstly, a 'bungling' and 'corrupt' foreign police force which tried to cover up a flawed investigation, secondly a sensationalist and irresponsible tabloid press which repeatedly libelled them by accusing them of murdering their daughter without a shred of evidence and thirdly a horde of 'Internet scum' who continue to persecute them without a 'shred of evidence' either and you have a complete impasse. Without sufficient evidence SY will not be able to bring charges; equally they will not be able to exonerate the parents either. The investigative review will therefore probably never be concluded and the case remain unsolved. See my signature. [/quote]

You sound as if there`s no hope of justice but I can see where you`re coming from in the cold light of day.
All doom and gloom. So is there a glimmer of hope? Maybe from indisputable evidence or say a witness statement from a participant?

Quote: Oldartform

You sound as if there`s no hope of justice but I can see where you`re coming from in the cold light of day.
All doom and gloom. So is there a glimmer of hope? Maybe from indisputable evidence or say a witness statement from a participant?

Kate Mccann stated under oath at the Leveson inquiry that there were no bodily fluids in the hire car. A blatant lie under oath is perjury according to Collins dictionary:

"perjury ['pF:dZErI] pl -juries noun (Criminal law)
the offence committed by a witness in judicial proceedings who, having been lawfully sworn or having affirmed, wilfully gives false evidence

Was Kate McCann warned by the venerable judge? Was she arrested and charged with perjury? No she was neither warned nor arrested and charged. So is one supposed to believe that evidence is not evidence if it originates from a 'bungling and corrupt' foreign police force and a 'flawed' investigation? Mrs McCann did not refer to the inconclusive results of the analysis of the material recorded as bodily fluid in the forensic reports, but denied the existence of bodily fluids in the hire car per se and hence, that such had ever been analysed by the FSS at all. With the assistance of Leveson and his farcical inquiry therefore, the McCanns have now eliminated the bodily fluids found in the hire car from the official 'establishment' version of history. That is why any evidence found by SY to make a case against the McCanns would have to be indisputable. Hopefully SY can come up with something which is conclusive and proves once and for all what happened and who did what, or we keep our fingers crossed that Pat Brown is successful.

Thanks T4two - right - she blatantly lied at the Leveson enquiry which can be proved and she has not been challenged. The picture is building.

I have always had trouble accepting that a whole bunch of establishment folks want to cover up something so despicable. You seem to be suggesting (or was it Blacksmith) that these establishment folks actually believe these two `nice, professional, upstanding citizens` and refuse to accept anything sinister has been going on. I find it hard to believe that people are that naive.

If its not naivety, it can only be that they actually have leanings to the `dark side` themselves. And I cannot believe that every member of this so called `establishment` is corrupt.

Oldartform wrote:Thanks T4two - right - she blatantly lied at the Leveson enquiry which can be proved and she has not been challenged. The picture is building.

I have always had trouble accepting that a whole bunch of establishment folks want to cover up something so despicable. You seem to be suggesting (or was it Blacksmith) that these establishment folks actually believe these two `nice, professional, upstanding citizens` and refuse to accept anything sinister has been going on. I find it hard to believe that people are that naive.

If its not naivety, it can only be that they actually have leanings to the `dark side` themselves. And I cannot believe that every member of this so called `establishment` is corrupt.

Not corrupt, but the majority only believe things which fit into their own limited view of the world. It is unthinkable to them that two doctors should be suspected of culpability in the disappearance of their infant daughter. They're doctors for God's sake! It is just unacceptable and therefore there has to be some other explanation. Enter Mitchell with Freud, Hobspawm and Sarah Brown et al with the acceptable explanation i.e. the child was abducted and the parents are the victims of a bungling foreign police force looking to make them scapegoats for a flawed investigation, victims of unfounded media speculation drawing on information leaked by those swarthy foreigners and victims of persecution by a mob of Internet scum. Push this explanation ruthlessly. Squash any resistance by any means at your disposal. Make it a cardinal sin to express even the slightest doubt at all. Remember how quickly John Redwood was forced to retract after voicing doubts on his blog? Remember the media outcry at the authoress who dared to say that she didn't like the McCanns and was critical of their behaviour? The only solace I can offer is that thus far the British police have not taken the official line as gospel. When Leicestershire Constabulary refused to hand over the case files to the parents during that infamous attempt by the parents to use the family court for their own ends, they drew a line in the sand which said, "This far, but no further." It is to be hoped that Scotland Yard are proceeding on that same basis.

T4two wrote:

Oldartform wrote:Thanks T4two - right - she blatantly lied at the Leveson enquiry which can be proved and she has not been challenged. The picture is building.

I have always had trouble accepting that a whole bunch of establishment folks want to cover up something so despicable. You seem to be suggesting (or was it Blacksmith) that these establishment folks actually believe these two `nice, professional, upstanding citizens` and refuse to accept anything sinister has been going on. I find it hard to believe that people are that naive.

If its not naivety, it can only be that they actually have leanings to the `dark side` themselves. And I cannot believe that every member of this so called `establishment` is corrupt.

Not corrupt, but the majority only believe things which fit into their own limited view of the world. It is unthinkable to them that two doctors should be suspected of culpability in the disappearance of their infant daughter. They're doctors for God's sake! It is just unacceptable and therefore there has to be some other explanation. Enter Mitchell with Freud, Hobspawm and Sarah Brown et al with the acceptable explanation i.e. the child was abducted and the parents are the victims of a bungling foreign police force looking to make them scapegoats for a flawed investigation, victims of unfounded media speculation drawing on information leaked by those swarthy foreigners and victims of persecution by a mob of Internet scum. Push this explanation ruthlessly. Squash any resistance by any means at your disposal. Make it a cardinal sin to express even the slightest doubt at all. Remember how quickly John Redwood was forced to retract after voicing doubts on his blog? Remember the media outcry at the authoress who dared to say that she didn't like the McCanns and was critical of their behaviour? The only solace I can offer is that thus far the British police have not taken the official line as gospel. When Leicestershire Constabulary refused to hand over the case files to the parents during that infamous attempt by the parents to use the family court for their own ends, they drew a line in the sand which said, "This far, but no further." It is to be hoped that Scotland Yard are proceeding on that same basis.

OK, perhaps not corrupt, not even naive, but definitely narrow minded tunnel vision. Yet so many of their ilk, the supposed fine upstanding upper class citizens have committed detestable crimes and they still refuse to look outside the box. I suppose its fear. It seems the courageous who put their heads above the parapet always get shot down.

Hopefully SY don`t have tunnel vision (coppers never do) and they report back to Dave that things aint quite measuring up.