BRIT LAD: MADELEINE MCCANN WALKED PAST ME IN COSTA RESORT

Autumn wrote:

Fern wrote:

interested wrote:I think Billy and his "three pals" must have had a liquid 'lunch' ...."outside the bar...". Odd that Billy was so focused on "the girl" that he was able to give a description of the man as "fairly poor, not a drifter but not a rich man". Of course he also had the prerequisite swarthy look too.

Is the Daily Star among the U.K. papers which pay for this kind of "I was there" story?

Such a shame that at least one of them didn't have the common sense to take a picture given that most mobiles these days, even the basic ones, have the facility.

Fern I take from your comment that you think it ok for strangers to pursue children to take photos of them. Think for one second about how terrified a child would be to be chased by teenagers or anyone for that matter trying to push cameras in their face. With a million pound reward on offer, how long before a child is grabbed by some nutter trying to claim he has found Maddie. Do you not care that a child will, if this madness continues, get seriously hurt.

Ok, lets look at this from another angle.

Put yourself in the position of seeing a child that you felt bore a stricking Madeleine McCann, what would YOU do ?

Fern wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Fern wrote:

interested wrote:I think Billy and his "three pals" must have had a liquid 'lunch' ...."outside the bar...". Odd that Billy was so focused on "the girl" that he was able to give a description of the man as "fairly poor, not a drifter but not a rich man". Of course he also had the prerequisite swarthy look too.

Is the Daily Star among the U.K. papers which pay for this kind of "I was there" story?

Such a shame that at least one of them didn't have the common sense to take a picture given that most mobiles these days, even the basic ones, have the facility.

Fern I take from your comment that you think it ok for strangers to pursue children to take photos of them. Think for one second about how terrified a child would be to be chased by teenagers or anyone for that matter trying to push cameras in their face. With a million pound reward on offer, how long before a child is grabbed by some nutter trying to claim he has found Maddie. Do you not care that a child will, if this madness continues, get seriously hurt.

Ok, lets look at this from another angle.

Put yourself in the position of seeing a child that you felt bore a stricking Madeleine McCann, what would YOU do ?

Get a damn good look at the person / people she was with for a start.

ELI wrote:

Get a damn good look at the person / people she was with for a start.

Then what ?

Fern wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Fern wrote:

interested wrote:I think Billy and his "three pals" must have had a liquid 'lunch' ...."outside the bar...". Odd that Billy was so focused on "the girl" that he was able to give a description of the man as "fairly poor, not a drifter but not a rich man". Of course he also had the prerequisite swarthy look too.

Is the Daily Star among the U.K. papers which pay for this kind of "I was there" story?

Such a shame that at least one of them didn't have the common sense to take a picture given that most mobiles these days, even the basic ones, have the facility.

Fern I take from your comment that you think it ok for strangers to pursue children to take photos of them. Think for one second about how terrified a child would be to be chased by teenagers or anyone for that matter trying to push cameras in their face. With a million pound reward on offer, how long before a child is grabbed by some nutter trying to claim he has found Maddie. Do you not care that a child will, if this madness continues, get seriously hurt.

Ok, lets look at this from another angle.

Put yourself in the position of seeing a child that you felt bore a stricking Madeleine McCann, what would YOU do ?

Fern, I believe the dogs therefore I would carry on walking. What would you do?

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

Get a damn good look at the person / people she was with for a start.

Then what ?

Make sure I could give a good description of the person to the police and where they went to. Yes if I genuinely thought I'd spotted the most famous missing child ever with someone I would not let them just simply walk off without attempting to see where they went.

Autumn wrote:

Fern, I believe the dogs therefore I would carry on walking. What would you do?

Yes indeed.

There is zero chance of that neglected (allegedly) child being seen alive, sadly.

Autumn wrote:

Fern, I believe the dogs therefore I would carry on walking. What would you do?

Would you really ?

So no matter how much the child resembled Madeleine, even if you saw the fleck in her eye, you would still simply turn a blind eye and walk on by based on YOUR opinion of the dogs ?

That is so very sad Autumn.

ELI wrote:

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

Get a damn good look at the person / people she was with for a start.

Then what ?

Make sure I could give a good description of the person to the police and where they went to. Yes if I genuinely thought I'd spotted the most famous missing child ever with someone I would not let them just simply walk off without attempting to see where they went.

Thats easier said than done if they got in a car and drove off.

I agree though, a detailed description along with the car number plate would be a good start.

Fern wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Fern, I believe the dogs therefore I would carry on walking. What would you do?

Would you really ?

So no matter how much the child resembled Madeleine, even if you saw the fleck in her eye, you would still simply turn a blind eye and walk on by based on YOUR opinion of the dogs ?

That is so very sad Autumn.

What fleck in her eye for Pete's sake? Even the McCanns are playing this down now. So just how close to you suggest a stranger should get to a child? Very close if they can peer into the child's eye. Think about the ideas you may be putting into people's heads before posting up irresponsible and potentially dangerous tips for the publc. This isn't a game of Where's Wally you know.

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

Get a damn good look at the person / people she was with for a start.

Then what ?

Make sure I could give a good description of the person to the police and where they went to. Yes if I genuinely thought I'd spotted the most famous missing child ever with someone I would not let them just simply walk off without attempting to see where they went.

Thats easier said than done if they got in a car and drove off.

I agree though, a detailed description along with the car number plate would be a good start.

Well then if they got into a car I would have the make model and hopefully the registration to pass on, the same applies if they went into bus or train station, a house, hotel, store or wherever. Fact is you wouldn't just let them walk off would you like erm Billy supposedly did. Nor would anyone in their right minds publicize the location for fear of putting the childs life in danger would they?

Autumn wrote:

Fern wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Fern, I believe the dogs therefore I would carry on walking. What would you do?

Would you really ?

So no matter how much the child resembled Madeleine, even if you saw the fleck in her eye, you would still simply turn a blind eye and walk on by based on YOUR opinion of the dogs ?

That is so very sad Autumn.

What fleck in her for Pete's sake? Even the McCanns are playing this down now. So just how close to you suggest a stranger should get to a child? Very close if they can peer into the child's eye. Think about the ideas you may be putting into people's heads before posting up irresponsible and potentially dangerous tips for the publc. This isn't a game of Where's Wally you know.

You're being silly now Autumn and rather dramatic if I may say so.

I haven't made any suggestions whatsoever that ANYONE should chase after children let alone get close enough to look into their eyes.

You've made it clear that you have placed Madeleines fate in the findings of the dogs despite even Martin Grimes himself not committing himself 100%.

That says it all for me.

Fern wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Fern wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Fern, I believe the dogs therefore I would carry on walking. What would you do?

Would you really ?

So no matter how much the child resembled Madeleine, even if you saw the fleck in her eye, you would still simply turn a blind eye and walk on by based on YOUR opinion of the dogs ?

That is so very sad Autumn.

What fleck in her for Pete's sake? Even the McCanns are playing this down now. So just how close to you suggest a stranger should get to a child? Very close if they can peer into the child's eye. Think about the ideas you may be putting into people's heads before posting up irresponsible and potentially dangerous tips for the publc. This isn't a game of Where's Wally you know.

You're being silly now Autumn and rather dramatic if I may say so.

I haven't made any suggestions whatsoever that ANYONE should chase after children let alone get close enough to look into their eyes.

You've made it clear that you have placed Madeleines fate in the findings of the dogs despite even Martin Grimes himself not committing himself 100%.

That says it all for me.

I think he believes they indicated to the scent of a cadaver though.

"False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal cases.......... "

Fern wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Fern wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Fern, I believe the dogs therefore I would carry on walking. What would you do?

Would you really ?

So no matter how much the child resembled Madeleine, even if you saw the fleck in her eye, you would still simply turn a blind eye and walk on by based on YOUR opinion of the dogs ?

That is so very sad Autumn.

What fleck in her for Pete's sake? Even the McCanns are playing this down now. So just how close to you suggest a stranger should get to a child? Very close if they can peer into the child's eye. Think about the ideas you may be putting into people's heads before posting up irresponsible and potentially dangerous tips for the publc. This isn't a game of Where's Wally you know.

You're being silly now Autumn and rather dramatic if I may say so.

I haven't made any suggestions whatsoever that ANYONE should chase after children let alone get close enough to look into their eyes.

You've made it clear that you have placed Madeleines fate in the findings of the dogs despite even Martin Grimes himself not committing himself 100%.

That says it all for me.

Now my turn to ask you a question Fern. The dogs' findings indicated that a dead body had been in Apartmentment 5A so how do you explain this given that there have been no reports prior to Madeleine's disappearance, of anyone dying there?

ELI wrote:

Well then if they got into a car I would have the make model and hopefully the registration to pass on, the same applies if they went into bus or train station, a house, hotel, store or wherever. Fact is you wouldn't just let them walk off would you like erm Billy supposedly did. Nor would anyone in their right minds publicize the location for fear of putting the childs life in danger would they?

Yes, obtain as much information as possible whilst being very discreet and then most importantly, act on it straight away.

I doubt very much that many still hold that Madeleine is still alive especially after almost 5 yrs however I for one wouldn't walk on by if the likeness was that shocking and turn my back based on my inexperienced interpretation of the dogs findings.

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

Well then if they got into a car I would have the make model and hopefully the registration to pass on, the same applies if they went into bus or train station, a house, hotel, store or wherever. Fact is you wouldn't just let them walk off would you like erm Billy supposedly did. Nor would anyone in their right minds publicize the location for fear of putting the childs life in danger would they?

Yes, obtain as much information as possible whilst being very discreet and then most importantly, act on it straight away.

I doubt very much that many still hold that Madeleine is still alive especially after almost 5 yrs however I for one wouldn't walk on by if the likeness was that shocking and turn my back based on my inexperienced interpretation of the dogs findings.

I agree, and this is what gives this 'sighting' less credability and the knowledge that it wouldn't be splashed all over the news.

As for the dogs, I have not as yet found any reason to doubt their findings.

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

Well then if they got into a car I would have the make model and hopefully the registration to pass on, the same applies if they went into bus or train station, a house, hotel, store or wherever. Fact is you wouldn't just let them walk off would you like erm Billy supposedly did. Nor would anyone in their right minds publicize the location for fear of putting the childs life in danger would they?

Yes, obtain as much information as possible whilst being very discreet and then most importantly, act on it straight away.

I doubt very much that many still hold that Madeleine is still alive especially after almost 5 yrs however I for one wouldn't walk on by if the likeness was that shocking and turn my back based on my inexperienced interpretation of the dogs findings.

You said earlier that is was a shame the lads didn't have a camera with them to get a photo of the child. Parents now need permission to take photos at their child's school events such as plays. Strangers taking photos of other people's children is quite possibly illegal and could certainly bring them to the attention of the police.

ELI wrote:

I think he believes they indicated to the scent of a cadaver though.

"False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal cases.......... "

I have no intention at all in trying to discredit these fantastic dogs.

Martin Grimes made several references to cadaver odour and the most important areas in my opinion were the parents room and items of clothing however without evidence to substantiate these indications, I am unable to them as 100% proof.

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

I think he believes they indicated to the scent of a cadaver though.

"False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal cases.......... "

I have no intention at all in trying to discredit these fantastic dogs.

Martin Grimes made several references to cadaver odour and the most important areas in my opinion were the parents room and items of clothing however without evidence to substantiate these indications, I am unable to them as 100% proof.

You must mean the interpretation of the evidentiary samples or should I say JL's ' opinion '. The Forensic report is very confusing as is the analysis in the GBFS report however it's clearer in that report to see how wording is used to manipulate results.

Autumn wrote:

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

Well then if they got into a car I would have the make model and hopefully the registration to pass on, the same applies if they went into bus or train station, a house, hotel, store or wherever. Fact is you wouldn't just let them walk off would you like erm Billy supposedly did. Nor would anyone in their right minds publicize the location for fear of putting the childs life in danger would they?

Yes, obtain as much information as possible whilst being very discreet and then most importantly, act on it straight away.

I doubt very much that many still hold that Madeleine is still alive especially after almost 5 yrs however I for one wouldn't walk on by if the likeness was that shocking and turn my back based on my inexperienced interpretation of the dogs findings.

You said earlier that is was a shame the lads didn't have a camera with them to get a photo of the child. Parents now need permission to take photos at their child's school events such as plays. Strangers taking photos of other people's children is quite possibly illegal and could certainly bring them to the attention of the police.

Its not illegal Autumn, can you just imagine the implications if that was the case ie when visiting a theme park for example with your own children and attempting to take a picture WITHOUT capturing another child in the background ?

ELI wrote:

You must mean the interpretation of the evidentiary samples or should I say JL's ' opinion '. The Forensic report is very confusing as is the analysis in the GBFS report however it's clearer in that report to see how wording is used to manipulate results.

Regardless of any reports Eli, the evidence just isn't there to substantiate the dogs findings AT THE MOMENT however given how quickly developements are being made in the forensic field, its only a matter of time before a clearer picture emerges.

This of course depends entirely on what samples have remained intact.

Make no mistake, my ONLY concern is for Madeleine and my only hope is that someday the person/s involved in her fate are brought to justice whoever they may be.

@Fern. I still think it worrying that you believe it ok for any Tom Dick or Harry to go around taking photos of children on the pretext they may be Madeleine. So anyone taking pics of other people's children, say on the beach, could say 'Oh I thought it was Madeleine'. Or what if a well-meaning person who believes they've seen Madeleine and takes the child's photo is reported to the police by the parents. The parents may even attack the person. I'm just concerned that someone will end up getting hurt.

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

You must mean the interpretation of the evidentiary samples or should I say JL's ' opinion '. The Forensic report is very confusing as is the analysis in the GBFS report however it's clearer in that report to see how wording is used to manipulate results.

Regardless of any reports Eli, the evidence just isn't there to substantiate the dogs findings AT THE MOMENT however given how quickly developements are being made in the forensic field, its only a matter of time before a clearer picture emerges.

This of course depends entirely on what samples have remained intact.

Make no mistake, my ONLY concern is for Madeleine and my only hope is that someday the person/s involved in her fate are brought to justice whoever they may be.

Fern I've no intention of going into the in's and out's of the DNA analysis on here other than pointing out that in order to state that there were enough components for someone to identify an individual, those components had to match that particular individuals reference sample. As for the GBFS conclusions, they are based on comparing hair samples to the NDNAD, rather than known reference samples.

Autumn wrote:@Fern. I still think it worrying that you believe it ok for any Tom Dick or Harry to go around taking photos of children on the pretext they may be Madeleine. So anyone taking pics of other people's children, say on the beach, could say 'Oh I thought it was Madeleine'. Or what if a well-meaning person who believes they've seen Madeleine and takes the child's photo is reported to the police by the parents. The parents may even attack the person. I'm just concerned that someone will end up getting hurt.

How many times do you believe this happened over the past 5 years Autumn ?

So we've gone from my initial comment that I felt it was a shame this lad didn't take a pic if he felt the resemblance was good enough to report to authorities, to a child being chased by teenagers and now to taking pictures of children on a beach. I can see where this is heading Autumn so I'll leave you to it.

Why oh why does the British Press toady to the McCanns all the time????? do they really think it sells more papers to print this stuff? The Public is
more intelligent than they think. I have no respect at all for the Mccanns the way they have betrayed the memory of their Daughter for money, they have no conscience .

ELI wrote:

Fern wrote:

ELI wrote:

You must mean the interpretation of the evidentiary samples or should I say JL's ' opinion '. The Forensic report is very confusing as is the analysis in the GBFS report however it's clearer in that report to see how wording is used to manipulate results.

Regardless of any reports Eli, the evidence just isn't there to substantiate the dogs findings AT THE MOMENT however given how quickly developements are being made in the forensic field, its only a matter of time before a clearer picture emerges.

This of course depends entirely on what samples have remained intact.

Make no mistake, my ONLY concern is for Madeleine and my only hope is that someday the person/s involved in her fate are brought to justice whoever they may be.

Fern I've no intention of going into the in's and out's of the DNA analysis on here other than pointing out that in order to state that there were enough components for someone to identify an individual, those components had to match that particular individuals reference sample. As for the GBFS conclusions, they are based on comparing hair samples to the NDNAD, rather than known reference samples.

Thats fine Eli as its the wrong thread for starters plus its getting late for me.

Very briefly, where were these samples you mention collected from ?