RubyTex 1,957 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Anyway i won't say much more because i'll have the McCann's legal team booting my front door in.....woof woof motherfuckers 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts?I haven't said that anywhere have I? There are loads of plausible explanations.. Going firmly into the realms of speculation here but with both of the Mcanns being doctors there is a very real possibility that they come into contact with dead folk from time to time.. Those dogs can apparently detect death even on washed items of clothing, so maybe it wasn't the little girl they were detecting? If that girl died in the apartment, I think it's more plausible that something happened to her in her parents absence rather than her being murdered anyway. Choke/fall/strangulation/etc, the same sort of thing that sadly happens to small kids all over the country all the time, even when the parents are there. IMO it's either that and they've covered it up because they also had two 18 month old babies to look after, or she really was kidnapped... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Do dogs lie? No. Do people? Yes. The dogs wouldn't be marking if there wasn't anything to mark...sorry mate Haha, of course a drug dog's never marked a mars bar.... I reiterate, the dogs wouldn't be marking if there wasn't anything to mark! Over 200 bodies marked and/or found but all of a sudden they're no good. Finding or marking dead bodies is bread and butter to a dog! RT your logic is flawed "the dog doesn't lie so they must be"? Yeah, water tight that. Over 200 marked or found, okay, how many of those were on the same time frame as this case? Has the dog never been wrong? If the dog is correct is that conclusive proof that the parents are guilty? RT it's this simple, the dog was brought in to direct the police investigation, not as a form of evidence. I don't believe you can convict a person based solely on that, you do, we disagree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts? we are saying theres a very strong possibility that a dead body was in the room and in the boot of their hire car Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts?I haven't said that anywhere have I? There are loads of plausible explanations.. Going firmly into the realms of speculation here but with both of the Mcanns being doctors there is a very real possibility that they come into contact with dead folk from time to time.. Those dogs can apparently detect death even on washed items of clothing, so maybe it wasn't the little girl they were detecting? If that girl died in the apartment, I think it's more plausible that something happened to her in her parents absence rather than her being murdered anyway. Choke/fall/strangulation/etc, the same sort of thing that sadly happens to small kids all over the country all the time, even when the parents are there. IMO it's either that and they've covered it up because they also had two 18 month old babies to look after, or she really was kidnapped... Malt, I wasn't arguing with you I was just trying to explain why the dog thing is considered inconclusive. Nothing you have said is wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaz_1989 9,539 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts? we are saying theres a very strong possibility that a dead body was in the room and in the boot of their hire car And all over the mothers clothes Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts? we are saying theres a very strong possibility that a dead body was in the room and in the boot of their hire car I can't dissagree with that. But what is being implied is that the parents are guilty solely because of this and the fact they are discrediting the dog for what to them is obviously bollocks. You can't draw that conclusion based solely on that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaz_1989 9,539 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 When the mother finally noticed the girl missing, she left the apartment, with her twins in it, to go and alert her husband and friends at the tapas bar. Im sure some will say that she was panicking and it was her natural reaction. But if i had 3 kids, and 1 was taken, like f**k would I be leaving the other 2 behind! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaz_1989 9,539 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts? we are saying theres a very strong possibility that a dead body was in the room and in the boot of their hire car I can't dissagree with that. But what is being implied is that the parents are guilty solely because of this and the fact they are discrediting the dog for what to them is obviously bollocks. You can't draw that conclusion based solely on that. Its not solely on that. Why are there 48 questions that the mother refused to answer? Actions of an innocent mother just wanting to find her daughter? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts? we are saying theres a very strong possibility that a dead body was in the room and in the boot of their hire car I can't dissagree with that. But what is being implied is that the parents are guilty solely because of this and the fact they are discrediting the dog for what to them is obviously bollocks. You can't draw that conclusion based solely on that. but all he evidence circumstantial or otherwise points to the fact the child is dead not abducted as the parents claim. from the dogs marking to the blood in the car boot all thats missing is a body and a provable motive, where as the abduction theory had nothing at all to back it up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts? we are saying theres a very strong possibility that a dead body was in the room and in the boot of their hire car I can't dissagree with that. But what is being implied is that the parents are guilty solely because of this and the fact they are discrediting the dog for what to them is obviously bollocks. You can't draw that conclusion based solely on that. Its not solely on that. Why are there 48 questions that the mother refused to answer? Actions of an innocent mother just wanting to find her daughter? Your kids been taken and the police are interrogating you personally, you gonna sit their all sweet as pie and understanding while they piss away time on false inquiries? Not to mention the fact they monutmentally f****d up leaving their kids alone leaving them themselves open to charges of neglect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts? we are saying theres a very strong possibility that a dead body was in the room and in the boot of their hire car I can't dissagree with that. But what is being implied is that the parents are guilty solely because of this and the fact they are discrediting the dog for what to them is obviously bollocks. You can't draw that conclusion based solely on that. but all he evidence circumstantial or otherwise points to the fact the child is dead not abducted as the parents claim. from the dogs marking to the blood in the car boot all thats missing is a body and a provable motive, where as the abduction theory had nothing at all to back it up. So you would be willing to convict them on that Paulus? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Westy76 546 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Don't know if this link will work this page is interesting and also why was the interview from mon night pulled of BBC iplayer on tues? Got some clout these 2!!! https://www.(!64.56:886/groups/507450985946255/permalink/657876897570329/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Right okay, so based on this dog are we actually saying that the parents are guilty of murder? Is that how we do things now? If not, I wonder why? Possibly because it's considered inconclusive by the experts? we are saying theres a very strong possibility that a dead body was in the room and in the boot of their hire car I can't dissagree with that. But what is being implied is that the parents are guilty solely because of this and the fact they are discrediting the dog for what to them is obviously bollocks. You can't draw that conclusion based solely on that. but all he evidence circumstantial or otherwise points to the fact the child is dead not abducted as the parents claim. from the dogs marking to the blood in the car boot all thats missing is a body and a provable motive, where as the abduction theory had nothing at all to back it up. So you would be willing to convict them on that Paulus? no it would need a body first, but i wouldn't be nominating them for parents of the year either Quote Link to post Share on other sites
riohog 5,701 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 looking real grief stricken not !! this is the first photo I have seen of them showing any type of emotion and it JOY at all that money Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.