RubyTex 1,957 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? Nothings been mentioned mate...i don't think you can argue with a dog that had found over 200 bodies beforehand swept under the carpet because it didn't suit the McCanns... It's not been swept under the carpet for any other reason than it wouldn't stand up in court RT. It's that simple. Not to mention as I have said previously, the dog was walked around the car and showed no sign of a mark, then directed to the boot again (after walking away) by the handler and then gave a mark..... I've found that much out with a 5 second search, I wonder what else there is that we don't know about it that discredits the dog enough for the police to drop it? What about the dog not getting there untill months afterwars when the handler himself said it needs to be within a month really. I'm not saying the dog was wrong, I'm saying there's enough reason to doubt it that the police don't trust it. I appreciate it wouldn't stand up in court because there is no actual body....please watch the video...the dog has free run and barks at her top, the lasses toy, behind the sofa and in the car boot! I just think it stinks the McCann's asked for the dogs to come in then when the dogs found something (whatever it may be) they discredited them straight away because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. The truth will come out eventually... The coppers book - http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? Nothings been mentioned mate...i don't think you can argue with a dog that had found over 200 bodies beforehand swept under the carpet because it didn't suit the McCanns... It's not been swept under the carpet for any other reason than it wouldn't stand up in court RT. It's that simple. Not to mention as I have said previously, the dog was walked around the car and showed no sign of a mark, then directed to the boot again (after walking away) by the handler and then gave a mark..... I've found that much out with a 5 second search, I wonder what else there is that we don't know about it that discredits the dog enough for the police to drop it? What about the dog not getting there untill months afterwars when the handler himself said it needs to be within a month really. I'm not saying the dog was wrong, I'm saying there's enough reason to doubt it that the police don't trust it. I appreciate it wouldn't stand up in court because there is no actual body....please watch the video...the dog has free run and barks at her top, the lasses toy, behind the sofa and in the car boot! I just think it stinks the McCann's asked for the dogs to come in then when the dogs found something (whatever it may be) they discredited them straight away because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. The truth will come out eventually... The coppers book - http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/ Suppose for a moment they are not guilty...... They want the dog to help with the case understandably, the dog produces an indication that points suspicion at them (they know this is false as they're not guilty) so what do they do? Obviously they're gonna discredit the dog, they know it's wrong! LOL. But that all stinks, because we all know they're guilty right? The dog's evidence is more substantial than that reasoning RT. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 if your kid was trapped under a pile of rubble,or snow. many times would you want the dog to keep going back? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RubyTex 1,957 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? Nothings been mentioned mate...i don't think you can argue with a dog that had found over 200 bodies beforehand swept under the carpet because it didn't suit the McCanns... It's not been swept under the carpet for any other reason than it wouldn't stand up in court RT. It's that simple. Not to mention as I have said previously, the dog was walked around the car and showed no sign of a mark, then directed to the boot again (after walking away) by the handler and then gave a mark..... I've found that much out with a 5 second search, I wonder what else there is that we don't know about it that discredits the dog enough for the police to drop it? What about the dog not getting there untill months afterwars when the handler himself said it needs to be within a month really. I'm not saying the dog was wrong, I'm saying there's enough reason to doubt it that the police don't trust it. I appreciate it wouldn't stand up in court because there is no actual body....please watch the video...the dog has free run and barks at her top, the lasses toy, behind the sofa and in the car boot! I just think it stinks the McCann's asked for the dogs to come in then when the dogs found something (whatever it may be) they discredited them straight away because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. The truth will come out eventually... The coppers book - http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/ Suppose for a moment they are not guilty...... They want the dog to help with the case understandably, the dog produces an indication that points suspicion at them (they know this is false as they're not guilty) so what do they do? Obviously they're gonna discredit the dog, they know it's wrong! LOL. But that all stinks, because we all know they're guilty right? The dog's evidence is more substantial than that reasoning RT. Do dogs lie? No. Do people? Yes. The dogs wouldn't be marking if there wasn't anything to mark...sorry mate 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 if your kid was trapped under a pile of rubble,or snow. many times would you want the dog to keep going back? That's fine but suppose you have a 10 square miles of rubble, and you only have time to dig one hole, the dog is worked over all 10 square miles showing no indication, then the dog is taken back to a possible suspect area and despite ignoring it previously gives a mark. How much do you trust that mark? You haven't a choice in the absence of any other evidence but how much do you trust it? You dig but don't find your kid. Was the dog right and you missed the kid? Was the dog right and something more than the obvious has gone on? Or was the dog simply wrong in a rare case? Using your analogy mate.... 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.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? Nothings been mentioned mate...i don't think you can argue with a dog that had found over 200 bodies beforehand swept under the carpet because it didn't suit the McCanns... It's not been swept under the carpet for any other reason than it wouldn't stand up in court RT. It's that simple. Not to mention as I have said previously, the dog was walked around the car and showed no sign of a mark, then directed to the boot again (after walking away) by the handler and then gave a mark..... I've found that much out with a 5 second search, I wonder what else there is that we don't know about it that discredits the dog enough for the police to drop it? What about the dog not getting there untill months afterwars when the handler himself said it needs to be within a month really. I'm not saying the dog was wrong, I'm saying there's enough reason to doubt it that the police don't trust it. I appreciate it wouldn't stand up in court because there is no actual body....please watch the video...the dog has free run and barks at her top, the lasses toy, behind the sofa and in the car boot! I just think it stinks the McCann's asked for the dogs to come in then when the dogs found something (whatever it may be) they discredited them straight away because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. The truth will come out eventually... The coppers book - http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/ Suppose for a moment they are not guilty...... They want the dog to help with the case understandably, the dog produces an indication that points suspicion at them (they know this is false as they're not guilty) so what do they do? Obviously they're gonna discredit the dog, they know it's wrong! LOL. But that all stinks, because we all know they're guilty right? The dog's evidence is more substantial than that reasoning RT. Nothing substantial about a dog marking an occupied rabbit burrow.. If my terrier marks a bury, I'd put my house on it there was a rabbit in there.. ..and there are far better dogs than her out there.. Mine might miss the odd occupied warren now and again but the ones she does mark are 100% correct.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaz_1989 9,539 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 Read the first couple of pages, can't be arsed reading the whole thing. Couple of things spring to mind, I can't believe certain people are passing off what they did as a simple parenting mistake. A parenting mistake is taking your eye of your kid for SECONDS and not noticing one climbs on a chair and falls off, going out to a restaurant leaving your children completely and utterly unattended is not a parenting mistake, it's pure and simple neglect. I find it baffling that people are actually defending that and making out that all parents have made similar 'mistakes' at some point......no!! I am a parent, and I know loads of other people who are parents, and as far as I'm aware I don't know anyone who would even consider leaving children of that age alone while you go out, it wouldn't even cross most peoples minds!! If I'm having a bbq and my daughter is asleep upstairs we have the baby monitor on outside even though it's a secure house and is fully locked up. Even if you take away the kidnap aspect, a normal person couldn't bare to think of their child crying alone in the apartment while you're away enjoying yourself, it's possibly one of the most unbelievable cases of selfishness I've ever heard! Hit the nail on the head there Rob. How anyone can pass this off as a parenting mistake I dont know. I left my little girl in the garage at the weekend for 10 seconds while I went and fetched one of the dogs from its pen. She climbed on a stool and fell off. She was alright but I felt guilty for taking my eye off her. Thats a parenting mistake. Planning to leave your kids alone for the evening while you go out for a meal isnt a "mistake". They thought about it. Decided it would be OK and went ahead with it. No one is saying they are perfect parents, I certainly arent a perfect parent. We try our bests. Were they trying there best on that "family" holiday? I think not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? Nothings been mentioned mate...i don't think you can argue with a dog that had found over 200 bodies beforehand swept under the carpet because it didn't suit the McCanns... It's not been swept under the carpet for any other reason than it wouldn't stand up in court RT. It's that simple. Not to mention as I have said previously, the dog was walked around the car and showed no sign of a mark, then directed to the boot again (after walking away) by the handler and then gave a mark..... I've found that much out with a 5 second search, I wonder what else there is that we don't know about it that discredits the dog enough for the police to drop it? What about the dog not getting there untill months afterwars when the handler himself said it needs to be within a month really. I'm not saying the dog was wrong, I'm saying there's enough reason to doubt it that the police don't trust it. I appreciate it wouldn't stand up in court because there is no actual body....please watch the video...the dog has free run and barks at her top, the lasses toy, behind the sofa and in the car boot! I just think it stinks the McCann's asked for the dogs to come in then when the dogs found something (whatever it may be) they discredited them straight away because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. The truth will come out eventually... The coppers book - http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/ Suppose for a moment they are not guilty...... They want the dog to help with the case understandably, the dog produces an indication that points suspicion at them (they know this is false as they're not guilty) so what do they do? Obviously they're gonna discredit the dog, they know it's wrong! LOL. But that all stinks, because we all know they're guilty right? The dog's evidence is more substantial than that reasoning RT. Nothing substantial about a dog marking an occupied rabbit burrow.. If my terrier marks a bury, I'd put my house on it there was a rabbit in there.. ..and there are far better dogs than her out there.. Mine might miss the odd occupied warren now and again but the ones she does mark are 100% correct.. Could you're dog tell if a rabbit had been in a burrow months after vacating it? And how much would you trust the mark? Then if your dog was shown the burrow and walked away then you directed the dog back to the burrow and gave a mark how much would you trust it then? I think marking where dead bodies have been months after may be a bit different to simply marking a warren. I'm not an expert but those that are have reasonable doubt. Even if the dog was correct, is there no other possible conclusion? The dog thing is inconclusive, it's that simple... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
danw 1,748 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.... Not quite the same but part of my shepherds sch training is tracking and article indication now I am nowhere near the level of the dogs used out there but when my dog indicates or follows a track its easy to tell from his demeanor if its a false indication or not I only do it for fun these guys do it for a living they would have a fair idea if the dog was right or no 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.... Not quite the same but part of my shepherds sch training is tracking and article indication now I am nowhere near the level of the dogs used out there but when my dog indicates or follows a track its easy to tell from his demeanor if its a false indication or not I only do it for fun these guys do it for a living they would have a fair idea if the dog was right or no My only point Dan is that dogs don't tell the truth or lie, they just behave and we interpret that behaviour as trained and as their instincts direct them. It's our interpretation that is a true or false. I wouldn't ever trust a dog 100% with anything. It's plausible the dog was wrong or the conclusions from that are wrong, there's no other evidence either way. It's inconclusive. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 oh and what about the dogs,and the hire car, was that ever answered on here,or was it touched on in the appeal on tv? Nothings been mentioned mate...i don't think you can argue with a dog that had found over 200 bodies beforehand swept under the carpet because it didn't suit the McCanns... It's not been swept under the carpet for any other reason than it wouldn't stand up in court RT. It's that simple. Not to mention as I have said previously, the dog was walked around the car and showed no sign of a mark, then directed to the boot again (after walking away) by the handler and then gave a mark..... I've found that much out with a 5 second search, I wonder what else there is that we don't know about it that discredits the dog enough for the police to drop it? What about the dog not getting there untill months afterwars when the handler himself said it needs to be within a month really. I'm not saying the dog was wrong, I'm saying there's enough reason to doubt it that the police don't trust it. I appreciate it wouldn't stand up in court because there is no actual body....please watch the video...the dog has free run and barks at her top, the lasses toy, behind the sofa and in the car boot! I just think it stinks the McCann's asked for the dogs to come in then when the dogs found something (whatever it may be) they discredited them straight away because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. The truth will come out eventually... The coppers book - http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/ Suppose for a moment they are not guilty...... They want the dog to help with the case understandably, the dog produces an indication that points suspicion at them (they know this is false as they're not guilty) so what do they do? Obviously they're gonna discredit the dog, they know it's wrong! LOL. But that all stinks, because we all know they're guilty right? The dog's evidence is more substantial than that reasoning RT. Nothing substantial about a dog marking an occupied rabbit burrow.. If my terrier marks a bury, I'd put my house on it there was a rabbit in there.. ..and there are far better dogs than her out there.. Mine might miss the odd occupied warren now and again but the ones she does mark are 100% correct.. Could you're dog tell if a rabbit had been in a burrow months after vacating it? And how much would you trust the mark? Then if your dog was shown the burrow and walked away then you directed the dog back to the burrow and gave a mark how much would you trust it then? I think marking where dead bodies have been months after may be a bit different to simply marking a warren. I'm not an expert but those that are have reasonable doubt. Even if the dog was correct, is there no other possible conclusion? The dog thing is inconclusive, it's that simple... My dog is used for locating live rabbits, not signs of rabbits.. She'd be marking every single hole unoccupied and occupied if she was capable of being trained to mark scent that had been there for weeks/months/years.. Just like those cadaver dogs, she can possibly differentiate between what a rabbit smells like when its there and what it smells like when it isn't there.. You look at pure working dogs doing other jobs, hounds for instance. What happens if one of them starts false marking? I know and you know, they don't tend to have very long careers.. Why would a working dog like a cadaver dog be any different? They need to be at the top of their game, shite wouldn't be tolerated full stop.. It's not as if that dog only gave the one false mark either is it? 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RubyTex 1,957 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mexlad 189 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? Have you read Gonçalo Amarals take on things ? 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.