\dogs don't lie...in the US or in Wales

mossman wrote:

ELI wrote:

mossman wrote:

ELI wrote:

mossman wrote:Come on folks - it was those damn posters. Should never have been left on the car windows. The dogs would be still running and Grimes would not know which car to point to if the missing posters had been removed.

You know, it is getting to the point where we should all bring a cadaver dog on holiday, if you intend to hire a car. Get him to check it at the airport before you take possession of it, otherwise you could be very unlucky like Kate and Gerry and get a cadaver car.

Quote: " FURIOUS Gerry McCann believes sniffer dogs used to find Maddie clues in the family's hire car were MANIPULATED by cops. "

Sniffer dog manipulation - there should be a law against that.

You know what will be next don't you ??

Eddie planted the cadaver scent

But Eddie was notoriously unreliable, he would not have got the right car. I think it is more likely there was a sea bass driving it.

.........Best explanation I've heard yet.... did it just Bass it's test ...

ELI wrote:

mossman wrote:

ELI wrote:

mossman wrote:

ELI wrote:

Quote: " FURIOUS Gerry McCann believes sniffer dogs used to find Maddie clues in the family's hire car were MANIPULATED by cops. "

Sniffer dog manipulation - there should be a law against that.

You know what will be next don't you ??

Eddie planted the cadaver scent

But Eddie was notoriously unreliable, he would not have got the right car. I think it is more likely there was a sea bass driving it.

.........Best explanation I've heard yet.... did it just Bass it's test ...

That's so awful I'll have to give you a

dazedandconfused wrote:

ELI wrote:

mossman wrote:

ELI wrote:

mossman wrote:


Sniffer dog manipulation - there should be a law against that.

You know what will be next don't you ??

Eddie planted the cadaver scent

But Eddie was notoriously unreliable, he would not have got the right car. I think it is more likely there was a sea bass driving it.

.........Best explanation I've heard yet.... did it just Bass it's test ...

That's so awful I'll have to give you a

Perhaps Eddie was already dead and smelt himself !

OMG!

Sean liked sea bass...sean wore nappies...sean pooped nappie...nappies tossed into hire car...Eddie barked
that was Gerrys explanation without explaining it
who liked sea bass in apartment 5a...

Suppose thats what blogs are for when your searching for your daughter,im sure Gerry came close to the truth once when stating...Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand.

“An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended.

“Faced with such a situation we believe any human soul will ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear.”

In a highly charged appeal, he said: “If you have done something you regret, if you find yourself in a situation you never intended, it is not too late to do the right thing.

With the shannon Matthews case, the cadaver dog did smell the scent but it was from a house where there was a bed that someone had died in.

kitti wrote:Perhaps Eddie was already dead and smelt himself !

Gerry McCann must be kicking himself. Look at all of these plausible reasons he could have given instead of the silly excuses he made up. Oh well.

matthew wrote:Sean liked sea bass...sean wore nappies...sean pooped nappie...nappies tossed into hire car...Eddie barked
that was Gerrys explanation without explaining it
who liked sea bass in apartment 5a...

Suppose thats what blogs are for when your searching for your daughter,im sure Gerry came close to the truth once when stating...Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand.

“An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended.

“Faced with such a situation we believe any human soul will ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear.”

In a highly charged appeal, he said: “If you have done something you regret, if you find yourself in a situation you never intended, it is not too late to do the right thing.

Poor Sean would most definately have pooped his nappies. Anything I have read in relation to sea bass producing cadaverine has said it is a mere possibility, but only after a period of seven days or more. Seven day old sea bass is not too tasty.

“An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended.

Someone i was talking to about the case believes this is for Kate

Fern wrote:
I would agree with you here Panda, Martin G does recall his dogs back to the car.

So what if he does? I don't see him turning up at Gerry's hospital and telling him how to read x-rays.

Iris wrote:

Fern wrote:
I would agree with you here Panda, Martin G does recall his dogs back to the car.

So what if he does? I don't see him turning up at Gerry's hospital and telling him how to read x-rays.

Yes, he does call the dog back, but like any of us humans who notice the smell of gas, we could easily wander around trying to trace it to its source. Eddie was running around like a wild thing because the odour was probably everywhere and he was madly trying to find the source. It's the concentration gradient, moving up the gradient from low to high and when Eddie found the high he barked!

Mr grime could hardly hold the dogs back when they were at 5a......that dog knew even before it got through the door.


The video off the cars in the underground car park was shortened to just show the Mccanns car because THAT was the ONLY car that the dogs reacted too.....no doubt the rest off the video off the remaining cars lasted a few hours.

I bet Gerry McCann was shitting himself when he was driving past, alone, looking at the underground car park trying to see what was going on and then realised and the penny must off well and truly dropped at that moment.

Even if the dogs were right though, the FFS could not isolate Madeleine's DNA to prove that she was in the car so the McCanns could not be charged.

The dogs were right panda.....unless the Mccanns transported another dead body in the car then we can assume it was madeleine....there were bodily fluids in the car and it wasnt shitty nappies!


There is a difference from pee and poop fluids than from bodily fluids that reaked off cadaver.

Panda wrote:Even if the dogs were right though, the FFS could not isolate Madeleine's DNA to prove that she was in the car so the McCanns could not be charged.

The FSS say they could not isolate Madeleine's DNA.... but there was something very dodgy about the Birmingham FSS U-turn, and the lengthy amount of time it took them to come up with absolutely zero results, whilst claiming that they'd destroyed all the samples during the testing process!

kitti wrote:The dogs were right panda.....unless the Mccanns transported another dead body in the car then we can assume it was madeleine....there were bodily fluids in the car and it wasnt shitty nappies!


There is a difference from pee and poop fluids than from bodily fluids that reaked off cadaver.

If it was that strong a case, why didn't they charge the McCanns there and then .?Forensics had to be 100% sure Madeleine's DNA was in that car.

kitti wrote:The dogs were right panda.....unless the Mccanns transported another dead body in the car then we can assume it was madeleine....there were bodily fluids in the car and it wasnt shitty nappies!


There is a difference from pee and poop fluids than from bodily fluids that reaked off cadaver.

OR they transported item(s) which had previously carried a cadaver and had fluids remaining. In the same way Gerry tells us they had meat in bags and there was a spillage, this could also have happened from something a cadaver had previously been wrapped in. Hence relatively small samples for recovery and perhaps not clear enough for testing ?

The McCanns like to use the excuse of it being impossible for them to have transported Madeleine's body some 20+ days later, the worlds press were watching etc. Nothing is impossible as they say, but there are other scenarios which are very possible and very likely imo.

Panda wrote:

kitti wrote:The dogs were right panda.....unless the Mccanns transported another dead body in the car then we can assume it was madeleine....there were bodily fluids in the car and it wasnt shitty nappies!


There is a difference from pee and poop fluids than from bodily fluids that reaked off cadaver.

If it was that strong a case, why didn't they charge the McCanns there and then .?Forensics had to be 100% sure Madeleine's DNA was in that car.

I don't think they had a strong case. The dogs I'm certain were 100% accurate, but it needed hard evidence to tie in with what the dogs detected and thanks to interference from the powers that be that was hard to come by. As they've totally ignored the conflicting, ever changing statements and all the other stuff that even a layman could see was BS, they weren't trying too hard to find other evidence. Just my opinion of course, which is probably totally wrong.

If someone or something has definitely been excluded from an investigation then it puts an end to it, the same principal applies to an inclusion. However if an investigation is unable to discover whether or not someone or something should be considered included or excluded from an investigation, does that completely rule them out?

The evidence Keela found may have been destroyed, lost, whooshed, whatever we want to call it and indeed that is a disgrace.

However the bright side is Eddie's evidence still remains. As it stands it requires corroboration, and that could happen at any time in different ways. So, even though Eddie is no longer with us, his statement stays true, remains admissable and will sit in the file until such time as the required back up is found.

As we have seen in recent times, a body is not the only acceptable evidence needed to corroborate a cadaver dogs statement in order to secure a conviction, so things are most certainly progressing in so far as their evidence in murder cases is concerned. Rather than fading into the background in these types of investigations the are moving forwards. I imagine Gerry McCann rather hoped that would not be the case when he tried to discredit them.

As we know Mrs Fenn for example is no longer with us. Where that leaves her statement I am not quite sure, but it can always be argued against, now she is no longer here to expand on it or answer further questions. Eddie's passing will have no such effect. I have a feeling a puppy springer is the one thing the twins will never receive as a Christmas gift.

ELI wrote: If someone or something has definitely been excluded from an investigation then it puts an end to it, the same principal applies to an inclusion. However if an investigation is unable to discover whether or not someone or something should be considered included or excluded from an investigation, does that completely rule them out?

UUM....do you want to run that by me again.

i guess the investigation would neither rule in or rule out...i must stress im guessing though
...no matter what evidence comes to light,there is a nugget that no McCann or anyone else can remove from the files...a cadaver dog alerted in the place where the parents said Madeleine was 40-45 minutes(Gerrys visual with poignant moment)before they said she dissapeared
Gerry later explains...we strongly believe Madeleine was alive before she was abducted...i guess he does believe the dogs Sandra

"we strongly believe Madeleine was alive before she was abducted"

How can he possibly make such a crass remark?????? He also said to Sandra figueras the Reporter not afraid to ask searching questions "ask the dogs" .