Unsolved Madeleine McCann

[Admiral Byng]

Sit back and enjoy the ride then.

On board the train is probably not to best vantage point to watch a train wreck unfold. I prefer to be in the grandstand.

 

[debunker]

no one's trying to make you go away... Of course you welcome. I think a lot of us in Australia were unaware of the multitude of forums and debate over this case, and how fast it's flowing here. Some are Possibly bemused that BF has become the meeting place of the two camps who don't normally meet either by the looks of it. So please know your welcome and don't be scared off by anyone if your come to discuss your ideas and beliefs.

The sudden influx is largely due to Tony Bennett apparently subjecting himself to real cross examination after avoiding it for so long. But this seems to be short lived as he is making a tactical withdrawal so that he does not have to robustly defend his position. Make of that refusal what you want.

 

[grizzlym]

no one's trying to make you go away... Of course you welcome. I think a lot of us in Australia were unaware of the multitude of forums and debate over this case, and how fast it's flowing here. Some are Possibly bemused that BF has become the meeting place of the two camps who don't normally meet either by the looks of it. So please know your welcome and don't be scared off by anyone if your come to discuss your ideas and beliefs.

Yes. Well put, CAS. You are all more than welcome to post on Big Footy.

I'm actually finding this discussion very interesting. What you will get here - or at least our ideal is - a space where things can be discussed reasonably and without it getting personal.

 

[debunker]

Now, to Debunker.

I asked him this question:

How do you explain the findings of the two dogs, Eddie & Keela?

He answered:


Such dogs have several problems well illustrated in the literature:

1/ They all have false positive and false negative rates that means their accuracy is less than 100%
2/ They are susceptible to cuing. (I would love to see the Grime videos reviewed in court by an expert)
3/ They are susceptible to serial errors.
4/ Mr Grime is quite clear that the dog indications are only indications and are not evidential unless further forensics are found.
5/ No-one has ever been convicted on dog indication alone.

Enough doubt to suggest that although 'dogs don't lie' they may make errors.

Now I have answered that promptly - are you going to answer my previous questions?

MY REPLY: Summarising, his answer appears to be: “These dogs are so error-prone that you can’t rely on their alerts, and therefore it was a total waste of time bringing them over from Britain”.

Note that Tony Bennett traduces my post. Dogs are (IMHO) very useful as indicative tools- helping look for more evidence- but are not reliable enough to carry a great deal of burden of proof. If they had actually discovered any evidence of the presence of a cadaver they may have been useful, but no further forensic evidence was found in the areas that they indicated.

Note that Mr Bennett uses a broad brush method of denial and does not in any meaningful manner adress the arguments.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'm too polite to hang around where I'm not welcome though.

Please don't feel unwelcome, carry on. It is interesting reading.

 

[debunker]

2. Please provide evidence that the dogs have no positive or negative false responses as claimed so often.

Martin Grime asserted in written evidence to the Portuguese investigation that his springer spaniel Eddie had never once given a false alert in 200 trials. That assertion has never been successfully challenged. In addition, before any sniffer dog is used (whether for detecting cadaver odour, different kinds of explosives, various drugs and manifold other substances and odours), they undergo a rigorous training programme. They will simply not be used if they are unreliable. As stated above, Martin Grime has an international reputation, Eddie & Keela have been used in at least four countries, and the F.B.I. currently make use his services and have done so for many years.

Please note this post very carefully= it indicates Tony Bennett's blindness to facts and adherence to myths.

He states that "Martin Grime asserted in written evidence to the Portuguese investigation that his springer spaniel Eddie had never once given a false alert in 200 trials."

Let us look at the EVIDENCE:



When asked about 'False Alerts' Mr Grime replied:

"FALSE ALERTS

In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption."

Note that this merely excludes specific foodstuffs.

This is interpreted by Antis that Eddie is 100% accurate.

This is not the case.

We know that in the McCann and Jersey cases Eddie reacted to apparent Cadaver Odour several times with no subsequent evidence of contact with a cadaver.This can have two explanations:

1/ There was cadaver odour and there was too little forensics to be recovered.
2/ There was no cadaver odour and the dog was in error.

Scientifically, Grime cannot claim 100% accuracy by just assuming that the first explanation is true. It is at least arguable that there was never any odour there. We know that dogs do have an error rate on all tests- drugs, explosives, blood and cadaver!

Note that Mr Grime does NOT claim that Eddie is a 100% accurate, he merely notes that he has never mistaken food stuffs for cadaver scent.

This is how the myth of 100% accuracy arose. Even then it is only a statement from the handler, not an empirical study.

Note: I give references: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm Vol IX p. 2481


All the rest of the post (save the misquotation of Mr Grime) is essentially meaningless.
[/quote]

 

[debunker]

3. Evidence from dog handlers has been admitted in courts in both the US and the UK, but the judges in the UK at least are required to warn that the reactions of the dogs do not necessarily confirm that which they are trained to indicate for, and such evidence cannot prove the presence of drugs, explosives, cadaver odour etc, only to suggest it as a possibility. No one has ever been convicted on the evidence of a dog handler alone.

Do you agree with this?

Yes to the fact that no-one has been convicted on dog-handler evidence alone. Yes to the fact that courts require corroborative evidence. I do NOT agree that an alert from a trained, experienced sniffer dogs is just a 'possibility'. Where a sniffer dog detects explosives on a plane, the plane is immediately evacuated. If a dog goes with police officers to a pub and the dog sniffs drugs on someone, that person will be arrested/searched.

Mr Grime states:

"The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."

09-Processo 9 pages 2473 to 2483 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Note the word 'suggestive' used by Mr Grime, not definite. Pretty close to my suggestion that it raises a possibility. Tony Bennett ignores this- as he ignores any other fact that challenges his point of view.

" no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."

Mr Grime's words. I rest my case- who do you believe, Hater Tony Bennett or the Dogs' handler?

 

[debunker]

4. Please show that you understand that because the way that Mr Grime works, (One dog detects only blood, the other detects blood and cadaver scent) the uncertainty is squared because of the statistics involved so that if we accept say a 90% correct rate (at the top end of any empirical study) that means an 80% rate; if 80% then 64, if 70% (at the low end of empirical study) then 49%.

That is garbage, sorry. Martin Grime was very specific in his expert report to the Portuguese police in stating that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour.

First note that Mr Bennett does not enter into argument, he just resorts to abuse- calling the post 'garbage'

He states:

"Martin Grime was very specific in his expert report to the Portuguese police in stating that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour."

As noted above, Mr Grime does not make this claim anywhere. What he says is:

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant."

Note 'suggestive that", not that "Eddie alerted to cadaver odour".

One might be forgiven for wondering whether Mr Bennett has basic competence in reading English!

 

[debunker]

5. Please show that you understand the concept of 'serial error'.

That’s a new one on me, but you’re at liberty to explain it on the forum (and how you say it supports your arguments). For the reasons given above, I won’t be responding further to you. But I suggest that introducing a concept such as ‘serial error’ is yet another attempt by you to circumvent the very obvious conclusion to which Grime and the Portuguese police officers came, namely that there had been a body in the McCanns’ apartment, on their clothes, and in their car.

6. Please show that you understand the process of unconscious cuing.

Yes. This is Dr Kate McCann’s argument that she uses on pages 249-250 of the hardback version of her book, ‘madeleine’, a copy of which I have, and have studied in depth. She explains away the dogs’ findings by saying that Eddie was responding to ‘the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler…this is not what I would call an exact science’. I don’t buy that argument for one second. Eddie had never once before given a false alert. Did he suddenly give 11 false alerts in a row in Praia da Luz? I don’t think so.

7. How effective do you think the dogs are - what are their error rates? Do you have independent evidence of this rather than a collection of anecdotes?

You have only to examine in how many situations dogs are used for their detection abilities. Give them a piece of cloth belonging to Mr A of Adelaide. If Mr A is living in Adelaide, a suitably trained sniffer dog will find him. Dogs can detect the presence of a corpse even underground or in a river. They sniff specific explosives or drugs. I think I read somewhere recently that they are now being trained to alert to cancerous growths in the human body. The range of what they can be trained to sniff expands year on year. Their importance in criminal investigations is increasing.

Note the abusive tone adopted (maybe we should call him Abusive Tone!)

5/- serial error is a well known scientific result of making an initial error, having that unconsciously rewarded, and then continuing to respons to that cue in future.

6/- Unconscious cuing is not down to Kate Mccann but well known in the Psychology literature and often commented on in investigations of dog alerts. See Wikipedia for Clever Hans for the earliest mention of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_hans

7/-unsupported sophomoric commentary rather than reference to specific empirical and published studes which I will reference if Mr Bennett chooses to try to support his mistaken views. Note the total avoidance of discussion or production of any reference material by Mr Bennett.

 

[debunker]

Cheerio, then, I hope you all have a profitable discussion from here on.

Thus running away, failing to debate and essentially admitting the failure of his arguments.

A little sad really.

When he expands on these theories on his own site it looks quite impressive, but when examined publically and critically, he has nothing to offer except myths, misunderstanding and hatred.

 

[debunker]

Tony Bennett fails to even respond to my other questioning post. Perhaps he would return and address these issues also:

"Do you accept that Eddie the EVRD reacts to dried blood from a currently living person.

It is myunderstanding that the key fob had Gerry McCann's blood on it and no cadaver scent.

Please provide a cite for FSS stating that the 'body fluids' were actually body fluids, had been frozen and came from Madeleine.

Do you understand the DNA report from the FSS that explained how 3-5 person's DNA were recovered."​

 

[debunker]

In summary, Tony Bennett makes out a case with inaccurate quotes and self constructed myths, and fails to provide references. He then runs away.

I make points and give references and am willing to stay and argue my case.

Up to you all really, who to believe.

 

[Jayelles]

Yep, the latest arrivals are more captivating to me than the actual case. Id be curious to know why people care so much/obsessively/deeply.

I can only speak for myself Beth. It's a bit like not being able to stand back and watching a group of thugs beating up a defenseless person. I am driven by a sense of injustice at the misinformation which gets perpetuated about the case because it is detrimental to the search for a child who may still be alive. In finding her, or at least finding out what happened to her, we stand a chance of finding the evil person who took her and prevent them taking another child.

 

[Sanders]

Please note who are answering questions and who are avoiding debate. Most posters here are unused to defending their beliefs without the assistance of friendly moderators stopping real argument by banning posters who fail to toe the party line. This is how the myths and misunderstandings grew in the first place.

I've noted your mo, and attempts to stifle debate with blundering, childish semantics. Which is why i'm not interested in discussing anything with you, as its tedious tactical approach - that and how you've plainly misrepresented your own positions.

There is nothing rigorous about demanding full Harvard system referencing, all you are trying to do is obstruct - and in some cases dishonestly so. For example you pretend to not know about the uniqueness in UK libel laws - now either you are lying or ignorant on that. in any case, the UK libel laws are uniquely skewed in favour of the plaintiff leading to the much publicised libel tourism phenomena, and the equally well publicised use to supress and censure the media using vexatious cease & desist letters from the likes of carter ruck.

Now i'm not very interested in your impression of a child calling out "prove it" to even the most widely and generally accepted pieces of information.

Much has been made & written of the McCann's use of these laws in an aggressive manner - they are also permitted to do so. I'm not going to bother with your dishonest ignorance of this.

So yes, your tactics and absence of an argument is a shame as i mentioned before. Equally i wonder as to your real motivation, other than as a serial nuisance (troll).

My position as is plain as can be seen on this thread - its clear that we do not know exactly what happened, and probably never will. Its equally clear that racism and jingoist prejudice is apparent in the portrayal of the portuguese police and their investigation.

Its also clear that the primary line of investigation has been into whether the parents were involved, that nothing conclusive was found but equally there is no evidence to suggest that the investigation was wrong to look into that line of enquiry.

So once again, that's me done with replying to your tactical, no position, postings. Good day

 

[Sanders]

What do you mean? If I am perceived to be doing this I'd like to know!

I wasn't referring to you

 

[debunker]

Tony Bennett has gone back to the security of his own forum where any dissent from his views is punished by banishment.

He likes his history:

"From the archives...another thing that Debunker got wrong...this exchange toook place in 2010:



QUESTION: Could the children be prosecuted in Leicestershire for chid neglect in Portugal?

TONY'S ANSWER: Yes. McCann-supporter DeBunker on this thread has got this wrong. S/he may, with respect, be unaware of Article 17 of the International Convention at The Hague of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, which came into force on 1 January 2002.



It says:



“The exercise of parental responsibility is governed by the law of the State of the child’s habitual residence. If the child’s habitual residence changes, it is governed by the law of the State of the new habitual residence.”



This explains why, back in November 2007, I applied for a summons against the McCanns for child neglect in England, not in Portugal."

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6...began-this-week-on-the-big-footy-forum#135319



Very amusing. As an ex solicitor he should know that although he quotes an International Treaty, he ignores the basic fact that very few (Murder, Manslaughter) crimes may be addressed by English courts if they are committed in foreign countries. This is why his attempt to criminalise the McCanns in the UK was thrown out by the Court.

It is telling that he tries to cover up his lack of forensic skills by mud slinging (inaccurately) on his own forum to which i have no access.

He is a little cowardly.

 

[debunker]

I can only speak for myself Beth. It's a bit like not being able to stand back and watching a group of thugs beating up a defenseless person. I am driven by a sense of injustice at the misinformation which gets perpetuated about the case because it is detrimental to the search for a child who may still be alive. In finding her, or at least finding out what happened to her, we stand a chance of finding the evil person who took her and prevent them taking another child.

I share all of that. I hate bullies and I hate injustice. Most of all I hate self appointed sad-sacks who target other people.

 

[BrenR1958]

Oh another myth that is widely shouted about is the shutters... You will hear people screeching at the tops of their voices, "Those shutters can't be raised from the outside." "Those shutters make a terrible noise, people would have wandered what was happening and gone to see." "Gerry McCann is lying when he says he could open the shutters easily from the outside."

So, "Those shutters make a terrible noise, people would have wandered what was happening and gone to see." - well thinking about it, if you lived in an area where nobody had those shutters and then you heard them being raised at a certain time of night, then you might go and investigate. But, in Portugal the vast majority of people have these shutters, so the shutter noise of them being raised and lowered would be dismissed.. in fact you would become oblivious to it.

An analogy being - I had a dog that would bark in the garden all the time, my neighbours got used to him barking and they ignored him.. When he died back in July people realised something was wrong, but it took them a while to figure the noise they were missing was my dog.

Now onto, "Those shutters can't be raised from the outside." and "Gerry McCann is lying when he says he could open the shutters easily from the outside." Gerry said in his statement of the 10th May 2007

Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.

Back in February 2012, PeterMac - a poster on a forum where Tony Bennett posts, went to Praia da Luz with Pat Brown - Criminal profiler.

They went to apartment 5A and from the outside raised those shutters

http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/02/19/the-shutters/



Well as you can see, they don't make that much of a noise and yes they can be raised from the outside which proves Gerry McCann was not lying.

 

[Jayelles]

no one's trying to make you go away... Of course you welcome. I think a lot of us in Australia were unaware of the multitude of forums and debate over this case, and how fast it's flowing here. Some are Possibly bemused that BF has become the meeting place of the two camps who don't normally meet either by the looks of it. So please know your welcome and don't be scared off by anyone if your come to discuss your ideas and beliefs.

Thank you.

You are correct that the two camps don't meet normally. There are anti forums where they post misinformation and speculation and then get all worked up about it, and pro forums where we try to counter the misinformation posted on the anti forums. You have to read both and then try and sort it out. Understandably, most people won't bother.

FWIW, if their petitions are anything to go by, the McCanns would appear to have more support from the public than opposition. McCann petitions have generated 70,000 and 140,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. Counter petitions raised by their detractors achieved only 1,000 and 1,500 signatures over a longer period of time.

 

[Jayelles]

Oh another myth that is widely shouted about is the shutters...

I wondered whether to mention "the jemmied shutters" as it is often touted as proof of McCann "lies".

The simple fact is that when Kate found Madeleine gone and the windows and shutter open, she assumed that someone had gained entry that way. Believing the shutters to be open-able only from the inside, she jumped to the (wrong) conclusion that they must have been forced and in their initial panicked calls to family back home, this is what they relayed. The family members passed it on. However, the McCanns soon discovered that the shutters had not been jemmied and as soon as they were free to discuss the case, they acknowledged this. Kate mentions it in her book.

Admitting that you were wrong about something is not the same as lying..

 

[Jayelles]

I wasn't referring to you

Okay thanks.

 

[debunker]

Thank you.

You are correct that the two camps don't meet normally. There are anti forums where they post misinformation and speculation and then get all worked up about it, and pro forums where we try to counter the misinformation posted on the anti forums. You have to read both and then try and sort it out. Understandably, most people won't bother.

FWIW, if their petitions are anything to go by, the McCanns would appear to have more support from the public than opposition. McCann petitions have generated 70,000 and 140,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. Counter petitions raised by their detractors achieved only 1,000 and 1,500 signatures over a longer period of time.

A more accurate description is that each set of fora defend their own myths while attacking the opposite side. There is little understanding of the other side and even less attempt to understand the other side. Each side fails to see its reflection in the other.

 

[Jayelles]

I'm feeling rather conscious of how this discussion might appear to the regulars of this forum so I will only post in response to questions from now on. If there are any

 

[muratfan]

They went to apartment 5A and from the outside raised those shutters

http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/02/19/the-shutters/



Well as you can see, they don't make that much of a noise and yes they can be raised from the outside which proves Gerry McCann was not lying.

Another myth was that there were no fingerprints found on the shutters. As well as the scene of crimes officer being totally inadequate and not protecting their own prints..

 

[Thomas1965]

Have just had a look at the thread on JillHavern (Tony Bennett's tame forum). The usual myths are being spouted there. If people do come here to argue, I suggest that people ask clearly for supportive evidence- don't just accept the myths.

No-one from the Pro sites seem to have found this forum, but they may arrive eventually- at which point I will address the myths that they have built. I am neither a Pro nor an Anti, merely an academic with a respect for good argument and substantiated facts.

Academic? pmsl, shall I post the question you asked Tony back in 2010?