Madeleine McCann

[Wibble]

And I forgot to mention that Cadaver dogs detect decomposition and not death so you lot are suggesting that they either killed her and kept her in the boot for days or that they hid the body and then dug it up once decomposition started to transport it for permanent disposal.

Sounds incredibly unlikely to me.

 

[The Neviller]

And I forgot to mention that Cadaver dogs detect decomposition and not death so you lot are suggesting that they either killed her and kept her in the boot for days or that they hid the body and then dug it up once decomposition started to transport it for permanent disposal.

Sounds incredibly unlikely to me.

Well this isn't true at all, they don't just detect decomposition, they detect the scent that a dead body gives off, and tests have shown this scent is given off pretty quickly, not just during decomposition.

Kate McCann passed the detection of the scent on her clothing off as her dealing with dead bodies. Do GP's generally deal with decomposed bodies when they come to sign off the death, or are they normally recently deceased?

Also, if she was in the boot of their car (I don't think she was, personally) it would have been after decomposition had started anyway, they didn't hire it until a couple of weeks after her disappearance.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Yeah Wibble's chatting shit. What he's said there is a load of bollocks.

Are we supposed to believe that the dogs were brought in on the off chance that the child's body had sat decomposing and undetected for days in the McCann's small holiday apartment?

And yet...

Expert? No?

Scientist with access to and ability to read and interpret the primary literature? Yes.

'kinell!

Blue-green algae dumb.

 

[711]

We've been through this in the thread, look up the definition of neglect yourself.

It is nothing short of neglect what they did, and continued to do. The outcome might have been worse case scenario, but that doesn't change the fact that you do not feck off out and leave your three year old daughter and younger twin children alone.

They left them alone, sleeping, in an unlocked holiday apartment in a foreign country. If that isn't neglectful I'm not sure what is.

My apologies to you, if you read my other posts I agree entirely, I'm just a bit shit at sarcasm, or whatever it is. Or obviously wasn't, in this case.

 

[Redlambs]

My apologies to you, if you read my other posts I agree entirely, I'm just a bit shit at sarcasm, or whatever it is. Or obviously wasn't, in this case.

That's cool mate, it can be hard to tell in a forum!

 

[Irwinwastheking]

711 that was the shittest attempt at sarcasm ever.

 

[711]

711 that was the shittest attempt at sarcasm ever.

Redlambs is so much nicer than you Irwin. Or is he? With me you're never quite sure.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

(are lols allowed in here?)

 

[Will Absolute]

Since when are lie detectors good evidence? They produce far too many false positives and you'll find little real justification for their use.

'Good evidence' isn't the same as definitive evidence. If that were the criterion, no evidence would be admissible, since there's an unquantifiable degree of doubt about all testimony. Lie detector evidence has the advantage that we know what that degree of doubt is.

Taking a low figure, if a lie detector test is accurate 85% of the time, that probability can be inserted in the 'probability string' represented by the probabilities of all the separate pieces of evidence put before the court, and a more accurate overall probability of guilt or innocence obtained. No individual piece of evidence has to be definitive.

'Genetic fingerprinting' mirrors the approach. The very high probabilities of accurate identification produced by the technique, are calculated from a string of much lower probabilities, represented by 'matches' at up to 6 to 9 individual sites on the genome. An individual 'match' might have a 25% chance of being purely coincidental, but, taken together, matches on a large number of sites give identification probabilities of more than a million to one. Such a test is regarded as very good evidence in court.

The problem, of course, is juries. Choosing 12 people at random off the street, to perform a complex task for which they have neither knowledge nor experience, has its drawbacks.

 

[JulesWinnfield]

'Good evidence' isn't the same as definitive evidence. If that were the criterion, no evidence would be admissible, since there's an unquantifiable degree of doubt about all testimony. Lie detector evidence has the advantage that we know what that degree of doubt is.

Taking a low figure, if a lie detector test is accurate 85% of the time, that probability can be inserted in the 'probability string' represented by the probabilities of all the separate pieces of evidence put before the court, and a more accurate overall probability of guilt or innocence obtained. No individual piece of evidence has to be definitive.

'Genetic fingerprinting' mirrors the approach. The very high probabilities of accurate identification produced by the technique, are calculated from a string of much lower probabilities, represented by 'matches' at up to 6 to 9 individual sites on the genome. An individual 'match' might have a 25% chance of being purely coincidental, but, taken together, matches on a large number of sites give identification probabilities of more than a million to one. Such a test is regarded as very good evidence in court.

The problem, of course, is juries. Choosing 12 people at random off the street, to perform a complex task for which they have neither knowledge nor experience, has its drawbacks.

That's not a low figure, that's an extremely high figure - there doesn't seem to be any actual peer reviewed study that I can see that puts their accuracy above 65%, and quite a few show worse than that.

It seems the 85% figure comes from people who are actually guilty, whereas for innocent people there's around a 50/50 chance the test will show them as lying. Even then if you want to learn how to, it seems a lie detector isn't that hard to beat (or at the very least, make inconclusive), so you also have to consider that if courts did use them, knowledge of how to beat the system would just be more widespread - its pretty interesting in one case someone wrongly convicted by polygraph (amongst other things) in order to prove their ineffectiveness, studied how to beat them, and got 23 out of 27 inmates to then beat a lie detector test, despite them all being guilty.

Introducing something so unreliable to the courts could only ever put doubt where there needn't be any. You'd just get so many cases of "if he's really innocent why did the lie detector show him as guilty?" and what not.

 

[Will Absolute]

That's not a low figure, that's an extremely high figure - there doesn't seem to be any actual peer reviewed study that I can see that puts their accuracy above 65%, and quite a few show worse than that.

It seems the 85% figure comes from people who are actually guilty, whereas for innocent people there's around a 50/50 chance the test will show them as lying. Even then if you want to learn how to, it seems a lie detector isn't that hard to beat (or at the very least, make inconclusive), so you also have to consider that if courts did use them, knowledge of how to beat the system would just be more widespread - its pretty interesting in one case someone wrongly convicted by polygraph (amongst other things) in order to prove their ineffectiveness, studied how to beat them, and got 23 out of 27 inmates to then beat a lie detector test, despite them all being guilty.

Introducing something so unreliable to the courts could only ever put doubt where there needn't be any. You'd just get so many cases of "if he's really innocent why did the lie detector show him as guilty?" and what not.

Getting into a dispute over facts is pointless. We must be looking at different studies.

Lie detector tests are used extensively by organisations like the FBI. If they had no value, I don't see why that would be the case.

You ignored the major part of my post in which I explained the context of their use and their interpretation.

It's a red herring in this thread anyhow.

 

[sullydnl]

Getting into a dispute over facts is pointless. We must be looking at different studies.

Lie detector tests are used extensively by organisations like the FBI. If they had no value, I don't see why that would be the case.

You ignored the major part of my post in which I explained the context of their use and their interpretation.

It's a red herring in this thread anyhow.

I remember reading somewhere that the biggest benefit of lie detector tests was as leverage in interrogation. I don't know if that's true or not but it would explain why it gets used regularly even if it isn't reliable.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

So what's the story with the lie detector ? Did her parents refuse to take the test ?

 

[Alex99]

So what's the story with the lie detector ? Did her parents refuse to take the test ?

Apparently they said they'd happily do a lie detector test to clear their names then when actually presented with the opportunity to do so refused to take one.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Apparently they said they'd happily do a lie detector test to clear their names then when actually presented with the opportunity to do so refused to take one.

Well I would have taken one that way the investigators would have taken me off the list of suspects and focus on someone else. Seems a bit odd tbh.

 

[Alex99]

Well I would have taken one that way the investigators would have taken me off the list of suspects and focus on someone else. Seems a bit odd tbh.

Their refusal to do a lie detector isn't the oddest thing to me, that's actually quite reasonable for reasons pointed out above (although why they'd say they'd do one in the first place was a bit weird). The oddest thing to me is why they so quickly evacuated Portugal after being made suspects. They said they weren't going to leave until she was found only to feck off a few days later with one of the top extradition lawyers around helping them out. Surely the rational thing to do would be to stay, clear your name, help the police out and help find your child?

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Their refusal to do a lie detector isn't the oddest thing to me, that's actually quite reasonable for reasons pointed out above (although why they'd say they'd do one in the first place was a bit weird). The oddest thing to me is why they so quickly evacuated Portugal after being made suspects. They said they weren't going to leave until she was found only to feck off a few days later with one of the top extradition lawyers around helping them out. Surely the rational thing to do would be to stay, clear your name, help the police out and help find your child?

They left a few days later..wow. Yep most patents I know would have raised hell on earth to find their child and never leave without her. Maybe they felt panicked with the direction the investigation was going but if you have nothing to hide then stay and find the truth. They have two other children to think about but I'm sure they had willing relatives to take care of them until Madeline was found.

 

[20solskjaer]

They left a few days later..wow. Yep most patents I know would have raised hell on earth to find their child and never leave without her. Maybe they felt panicked with the direction the investigation was going but if you have nothing to hide then stay and find the truth. They have two other children to think about but I'm sure they had willing relatives to take care of them until Madeline was found.

They left a few days after being made 'suspects', it was something like 80 or 90 days after she went missing though

 

[Alex99]

They left a few days after being made 'suspects', it was something like 80 or 90 days after she went missing though

I know. It's what makes it even weirder for me. They'd hung around for ages, yet ran at the first sign of any possible trouble for them.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

They left a few days after being made 'suspects', it was something like 80 or 90 days after she went missing though

That makes more sense. It really is a parent's worst nightmare and if they really are innocent it's heartbreaking.

 

[Livvie]

I know. It's what makes it even weirder for me. They'd hung around for ages, yet ran at the first sign of any possible trouble for them.

I don't blame them. If they were concerned that they could be about to lose their freedom - and innocent people have been put in prison - then why wouldn't they get out if they could? Even a slight risk of being jailed would be enough to frighten them into leaving.

The problem with the McCanns is that they just don't come across well, and they'd have done themselves a lot more good if they'd put their hands up and said that they should never have left the children alone.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

I don't blame them. If they were concerned that they could be about to lose their freedom - and innocent people have been put in prison - then why wouldn't they get out if they could? Even a slight risk of being jailed would be enough to frighten them into leaving.

The problem with the McCanns is that they just don't come across well, and they'd have done themselves a lot more good if they'd put their hands up and said that they should never have left the children alone.

The perfect alibi also is to ensure you're seen in a public place and have a lot of people to vouch that you were not at the scene of the crime when it happened. Did anyone actually see them put her to bed ?

 

[Livvie]

You really think a couple could go out to dinner as if nothing had happened after killing their child? The likelihood of it being deliberate is virtually nil, which leaves the alternative of it being accidental - there's no way that the McCanns would not have been in serious shock if that was the case. It would be nigh on impossible to behave normally in those circumstances.

 

[ciderman9000000]

You really think a couple could go out to dinner as if nothing had happened after killing their child? The likelihood of it being deliberate is virtually nil, which leaves the alternative of it being accidental - there's no way that the McCanns would not have been in serious shock if that was the case. It would be nigh on impossible to behave normally in those circumstances.

Unless they're particularly cold hearted and calculated people. Any postulate suppositions involving the impossibility of parents acting nonchalant in such a situation are rendered invalid when you consider that the kind of people who would attempt to cover up a severe case of neglect in such a way certainly would not prescribe to your predefined notions of how parents ordinarily act. The theory of the McCanns' involvement requires them to be cold hearted and calculated human beings, thus pointing out that only people particularly cold hearted and calculated would be capable of doing what they did is poor rebuttal indeed.

 

[Wibble]

Some people have watched too many thrillers.

 

[Wibble]

Getting into a dispute over facts is pointless.

.

Damn those pesky facts.

The reason that cadaver dogs and lie detector tests aren't admissible in court as evidence is because they worse than useless if the person is innocent/there was nothing to find.

 

[Livvie]

I don't think they're cold-hearted, though I think they come across that way. I think they made a huge error of judgement and were neglectful, but they didn't for one minute think anything would go wrong. That doesn't excuse them, but for them now to be labelled child-killers if they're innocent, is really kicking someone who is down. They're suffering for that neglect and will do so forever probably, but I don't see any logic in the belief that they killed the child.

 

[Wibble]

Well this isn't true at all, they don't just detect decomposition, they detect the scent that a dead body gives off, and tests have shown this scent is given off pretty quickly, not just during decomposition.

What do you think the smell is that dead bodies give off if not decomposition? Because cadaver dogs don't detect urine or faeces which is the only other likely smell prior to decomposition setting in. Detectable decomposition can start in only a few hours in hot weather but in this case no trace evidence was found and a smell detectable so long after the event would almost certainly have left some. Plus they didn't even have the car at the time of the girl's disappearance.

 

[Rooney24]

Unless they're particularly cold hearted and calculated people. Any postulate suppositions involving the impossibility of parents acting nonchalant in such a situation are rendered invalid when you consider that the kind of people who would attempt to cover up a severe case of neglect in such a way certainly would not prescribe to your predefined notions of how parents ordinarily act. The theory of the McCanns' involvement requires them to be cold hearted and calculated human beings, thus pointing out that only people particularly cold hearted and calculated would be capable of doing what they did is poor rebuttal indeed.

Both of them? One of them individually possibly, but both to the level that would be required to avoid detection is quite a stretch.

 

[The Neviller]

What do you think the smell is that dead bodies give off if not decomposition? Because cadaver dogs don't detect urine or faeces which is the only other likely smell prior to decomposition setting in. Detectable decomposition can start in only a few hours in hot weather but in this case no trace evidence was found and a smell detectable so long after the event would almost certainly have left some. Plus they didn't even have the car at the time of the girl's disappearance.

Do you even bother to read what you're replying to?

 

[Eyepopper]

I know. It's what makes it even weirder for me. They'd hung around for ages, yet ran at the first sign of any possible trouble for them.

You dont, maybe think for a minute that all their actions following it being reported to the authorities were taken on the advice of both their legal representation and representations of the British Embassy?

 

[swooshboy]

I don't think they're cold-hearted, though I think they come across that way. I think they made a huge error of judgement and were neglectful, but they didn't for one minute think anything would go wrong. That doesn't excuse them, but for them now to be labelled child-killers if they're innocent, is really kicking someone who is down. They're suffering for that neglect and will do so forever probably, but I don't see any logic in the belief that they killed the child.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they committed premeditated murder. Most people who don't subscribe to the abduction theory believe that Madeline died accidentally - either from an accident, or from sedatives she may have been given.

No one has been labelling them as child killers, as far as I can recall. But if you take away the abduction angle, then you're left with the parents being implicated in my opinion.

 

[swooshboy]

Some people have watched too many thrillers.

Or maybe they don't completely buy the abduction theory.

Am still waiting for someone to post the evidence that suggest abduction - aside from the parent's immediate knowledge that she had indeed been abducted, and no other scenario was even possible.

 

[Alex99]

You dont, maybe think for a minute that all their actions following it being reported to the authorities were taken on the advice of both their legal representation and representations of the British Embassy?

I'd be very surprised if that wasn't what happened, but it still doesn't make me think that it was any less odd for them to feck off at the first sign of trouble. They were surrounded with lawyers, but they literally ran away only a matter of days after being named suspects. It's not unusual for parents to be named suspects in cases like this, and the fact that they ran rather than stayed to clear their names is the reason I find it so odd. Their daughter has gone missing and the police force looking for her name them suspects, which is standard procedure, but rather than stay and help with the case, they went back to Britain and have spent pretty much all of their time since having a go at the Portuguese police.

 

[Eyepopper]

I'd be very surprised if that wasn't what happened, but it still doesn't make me think that it was any less odd for them to feck off at the first sign of trouble. They were surrounded with lawyers, but they literally ran away only a matter of days after being named suspects. It's not unusual for parents to be named suspects in cases like this, and the fact that they ran rather than stayed to clear their names is the reason I find it so odd. Their daughter has gone missing and the police force looking for her name them suspects, which is standard procedure, but rather than stay and help with the case, they went back to Britain and have spent pretty much all of their time since having a go at the Portuguese police.

So you don't think there's a chance that the Portuguese police were so frustrating that they decided the best course of action was to leave?

Not saying thats the case, but 'they killed her' wouldn't be the first thought to spring to my mind.

 

[Alex99]

So you don't think there's a chance that the Portuguese police were so frustrating that they decided the best course of action was to leave?

Not saying thats the case, but 'they killed her' wouldn't be the first thought to spring to my mind.

I don't really buy the whole story about the Portuguese police being inept. We know from day one that the McCanns and their friends were actually very uncooperative, be it through changing details in stories, whole stories, or refusing to answer questions. They were named suspects in her disappearance, which as I said is pretty standard practice in any case like this. As far as I'm aware the Portuguese police hadn't actually stated anything about them killing her, and the only people telling that story were the family's spokesperson and a family friend. The police gave them suspect status so that they could ask certain questions, but none of them were answered. It seems extremely strange that they wouldn't answer anything put to them, even if they were lying in their answers. Kate refused to answer every question put forward to her bar one, which was "Are you aware that by refusing to answer questions you're hindering the investigation?", to which she answered "yes". Even if the police did make them suspects on the grounds that they think the McCanns were involved in her death, they certainly acted suspiciously from the start, and have continued to do so since.

 

[Eyepopper]

I don't really buy the whole story about the Portuguese police being inept. We know from day one that the McCanns and their friends were actually very uncooperative, be it through changing details in stories, whole stories, or refusing to answer questions. They were named suspects in her disappearance, which as I said is pretty standard practice in any case like this. As far as I'm aware the Portuguese police hadn't actually stated anything about them killing her, and the only people telling that story were the family's spokesperson and a family friend. The police gave them suspect status so that they could ask certain questions, but none of them were answered. It seems extremely strange that they wouldn't answer anything put to them, even if they were lying in their answers. Kate refused to answer every question put forward to her bar one, which was "Are you aware that by refusing to answer questions you're hindering the investigation?", to which she answered "yes". Even if the police did make them suspects on the grounds that they think the McCanns were involved in her death, they certainly acted suspiciously from the start, and have continued to do so since.

The only thing you know for sure is that you don't know anything.

Have you ever been questioned by police? They can ask the same thing a million times, a million different ways. Maybe, over weeks, while your child is missing, that can get a bit tiresome.

 

[Alex99]

The only thing you know for sure is that you don't know anything.

Have you ever been questioned by police? They can ask the same thing a million times, a million different ways. Maybe, over weeks, while your child is missing, that can get a bit tiresome.

Considering a big deal was made about them being made suspects, and part of that meaning the police could ask new questions, I'd wager that at least some of those questions were completely new. As for the others, why not answer them again? Why not point out that you've already answered this? She stayed silent throughout, apart from one question near the start which she said she wasn't going to answer.

You're pointing out to me that the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything, when in fact we know that Kate refused to answer all of those questions and answered yes when asked if she was aware it was hindering the investigation. We know the McCanns were surrounded by lawyers and legal representatives before they were named suspects, and we know they fled the country as soon as they were named suspects. We know that they left their children unattended on multiple nights, and we know that they had barely spent any time with them during the day. We know that they had left the patio door open, and we know that they claimed to have known instantly that she was abducted despite this. We know that details in stories have been changed and that they have shown absolutely no remorse for leaving the kids alone in the hotel.

What we don't know, which is exactly what you're speculating about, is whether they were asked all of these questions before and how cooperative they'd been before. I also don't see how it's at all relevant if I've been questioned by police or not.

 

[swooshboy]

Considering a big deal was made about them being made suspects, and part of that meaning the police could ask new questions, I'd wager that at least some of those questions were completely new. As for the others, why not answer them again? Why not point out that you've already answered this? She stayed silent throughout, apart from one question near the start which she said she wasn't going to answer.

You're pointing out to me that the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything, when in fact we know that Kate refused to answer all of those questions and answered yes when asked if she was aware it was hindering the investigation. We know the McCanns were surrounded by lawyers and legal representatives before they were named suspects, and we know they fled the country as soon as they were named suspects. We know that they left their children unattended on multiple nights, and we know that they had barely spent any time with them during the day. We know that they had left the patio door open, and we know that they claimed to have known instantly that she was abducted despite this. We know that details in stories have been changed and that they have shown absolutely no remorse for leaving the kids alone in the hotel.

What we don't know, which is exactly what you're speculating about, is whether they were asked all of these questions before and how cooperative they'd been before. I also don't see how it's at all relevant if I've been questioned by police or not.

Exactly.

I find it strange that any suggestion that they may have been involved is met with comments of "you don't know anything". or "it's just not possible" or "you've been watching too many Hollywood movies".

Would be more helpful for an actual discussion, if they could respond with some thoughts of how it could have happened, or point to the evidence that they feel supports the theory that they believe.

As you have said, there are some facts that we do know.

We know which questions Kate refused to answer - such as:

1- On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2- Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)

5- How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?

6- Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

7- Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

17- Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?

20- Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

I don't understand why you wouldn't provide answers to help the police - given that you have already decided she has been abducted, and actually admit that you are potentially hindering the investigation and making it less likely for them to be able to find your daughter.

I still can't get over the fact that she didn't check on her other children - if I went home and found one of my children missing (and remember she states that she knew instantly that she had been abducted), then the first thing I would do would be to check that my other children were there and safe. The last thing I would do would be to leave them alone again.

The bottom line is she immediately knew that Madeline had been abducted, yet also somehow knew that the other children had not been. I find that completely unbelievable and is one of the reasons I do not believe their account.

 

[Sarni]

Indeed what I find baffling is why they instantly thought that she'd been abducted when there was no sign of forced entry and patio door was left open in the first place anyway. She might have simply wandered away for all they knew. Apparently they thought that the window being open wide was enough of an evidence but couldn't the kid simply open it herself?

Abductions are relatively rare, especially in foreign countries where people don't even know you so it makes no sense for them to take random kids for ransom, it surely shouldn't be the first thing that springs to your mind when you find you kid's bed empty.

Refusing to co-operate with the police is another thing. They were the only authority conducting the investigation at the time so by obstructing their work and making it harder you're virtually nullifying any chance of finding your daughter there might be.