Re: from UK Jusice
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:26 pm
Oh no - G-Unit is now posting on Justice forum!
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threa ... 28/page-39
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threa ... 28/page-39
Files and Facts about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
That, malevolent and dishonest as always from one poster on the board, is, nonetheless, a shift.If CB is convicted of murder but not abduction then it can't be assumed that he was an abductor. How Madeleine left 5A would remain a mystery for ever. Maybe MWT's theory was correct; she wandered off.
Mr Grey might be right, but I think it more likely that Amaral maliciously misrepresented the evidence.Amaral didn't understand the evidence..that's fact...not opinion.....and he isn't right about CB being a scapegoat
How to break it gently to Kizzy.although the mccs were never going to leave any stone unturned seems they missed a golden opportunity here.
They have spent practically all their energy on a bitter fight going after GA.
The motive for that was he was harming the search for Maddie [seems it turned out it was reputation etc].
I wonder what their motive was in turning down a chance to prove they were innocent. and prove the DNA is no longer inconclusive.
Offer to help examine DNA samples ignored
Among the other things Operation Grange has showed no interest in is the remarkable offer by Dr Mark Perlin, chief scientist and executive of an American company, Cybergenetics, which is reputed to have the world’s most advanced equipment and methods to examine and identify DNA samples. Asked by an Australian news outlet if he could help in the Madeleine case, Dr Perlin said he would gladly analyse forensic samples found by specialist dogs in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and in a car they had hired 25 days after the reported disappearance. He said he could decipher 18 previously unsolvable DNA samples dating back to 2007.
A now defunct laboratory in the UK had been unable to come to any proper conclusions about them. Despite the lapse of time, Dr Perlin was optimistic that if the samples were sent to him, he and his team could accurately identify the DNA in less than a fortnight. He offered his services to Operation Grange free of charge, but he got no response. Dr Perlin extended the offer to Gerry McCann, but he did not respond either. Again, one wonders why.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htmWhatever he [Grime] may have suspected, guessed or deduced, his dog alerted, and that was not in his control.
Alerts were most definitely under Grime's control. He kept returning the dog to the same spots -- repeatedly -- until the dog eventually got fed up and barked.From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Presumably to promote the fiction that the Prosecutors did not definitively rule out the possibility that Kate and Gerry were behind Madeleine's disappearance.Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
After making plain the McCanns played no part in the disappearance of Madeleine, they added that they had no real clue what happened to Madeleine -- beyond that Kate and Gerry played no part in Madeleine's disappearance.The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
Suspect in Maddie case filmed rapes of three womenNo wonder the police have never found the women allegedly on the tape. Seyferth describes one as 45 while Busching says 70-80. Seyferth says there was one tape while Busching said two.
The court picked up on the contradictions and rather than helping to convict Brueckner there evidence was dismissed.
I think G-Unit is simple.My question is simple. How did Grange decide that the crime was abduction?
Numerous?As has been pointed out dozens of times before there are (sadly) numerous examples of first time child abductor / murderers - why do you think it's unlikely Bruckner could be one too? Any specific reason apart from "just because"?
In your view did the person who you believe ran over Madeleine and hid her body have to have had a track record of running over kids and hiding their bodies in order to have committed this crime?
Looks as if Andy Redwood might have been on to something ....1. A burglary gone wrong
Former Operation Grange head DCI Andy Redwood championed a theory that Maddie had been kidnapped by thieves during a bungled burglary at the holiday flat.
There had been a fourfold increase in burglaries from the start of 2007 to the day the three-year-old went missing.
In the three weeks before Maddie's disappearance, windows were used to gain access to apartments in the Ocean Club complex and British detectives believed the toddler may have disturbed an intruder.
But Portugal's Policia Judiciaria made little secret of their dismissal of the theory.
It was the conclusion of the Portuguese prosecutors, on a set of files more accurate and more complete, than anything online, that Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by a stranger (to Madeleine).McCann supporters are often keen to tell us that the three expert investigative forces believe Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. That, in essence, the police have evidence which proves it completely impossible that the McCanns could be in any way involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
So, I'd like to hear from members...
What possible evidence could there be that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.
Members are invited to add to this list.
(More in an edit)To claim Eddie alerte to cadaver odour is not a fact and it is therefore a lie to refer to it as a fact. There are further lies in the interim report. The dogs do not have a 100% record,..they are not the only dogs of their type in the world. Both these claims were made in the Interim report by Almeida and are untrue and therefore lies.
Amarals book does not have a factual basis..it is based on lies.
The PJ seem to have too much belief in Grime.
The diver in the Nicola Bulley case reminds me of Grime. Highly regarded as an expert in his field and now his reputation is in tatters.
I think the same will happen to Grime.
NB The online corruption of Mark Harrison's report which has him describing freelance Martin Grime's private working pets as Police dogs edited out.During the searches two dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
The searches described in this document were limited to certain locations. Therefore, it can not be said that the concealed remains of Madeleine McCann are not within the village of Praia da Luz. During the first week of her disappearance the GNR tasked personnel to search through the village for the scenario of Madeleine still being alive. This involved visiting dwellings and business premises and a physical search of the refuse bins. A full scale re-search of the village is not currently advised due to its speculative nature and resource implications. Should new information or intelligence identify a specific location then it would be recommended to re-search it adopting the similar model of reconnaissance followed by a search using several detecting methods as detailed in this report to provide a high assurance of detection for a concealed body.
At the conclusion of this initial process of “clearing the ground under your feet” I am satisfied a systematic review and search procedure has been conducted and accurately recorded by the PJ.
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Should further advice or support be required regarding search activity then I would be happy to consider such a request.
http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/deci ... rtugal.htmhonestbroker1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 7:02 pmThere was a case, I think Sal found, way back, where a couple of yachtsmen sailed to Portugal and anchored somewhere offshore before going ashore.
The Portuguese found a stash of illegal drugs on the sea-bed quite close to where the yacht was moored and that was all the 'evidence' the Portuguese police needed to convict the yachtsmen of drug smuggling. They appealed through the Portuguese courts and lost; then attempted to take their case to the EU, who threw it out on the basis that they don't act as a final court of appeal against decisions of national courts.
I guess it's similar here.