Unsolved Madeleine McCann - New Leads Being Reported

[Angry Red Bull]

It is clear that German prosecutor Wolters in trying to snare Brueckner for Maddie abduction death is first furthering the various others cases. In particular there was an incident on a beach a month before Maddie abduction where Brueckner allegedly grabbed a young girl 10 yo took her to isolated part of beach to then abuse her. Her mother disrupted the attack and he fled. Apparently a significant factor was the eyewitness account that the offender had rabbit teeth. Evidence has now been provided that Brueckner several months after Maddie abduction returned to Germany and had $7500 dental work done including adjusting jaw position which altered his face to hide that he at the time did have rabbit teeth.

Clearly charges will follow for many of his alleged offences to finally bring enough pressure to have him to also admit to Maddie abduction.

Wolters current belief is that Brueckner was responsible for abduction and that traffickers were involved and Maddie was killed in Portugal

 

[johnymac1]

German prosecutor Wolters went too early, should have waited until he's compiled an air tight case.
Makes the UK Met look stupid, they never even got close to identifying CB.

I do have doubts CB is the guy.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

German prosecutor Wolters went too early, should have waited until he's compiled an air tight case.
Makes the UK Met look stupid, they never even got close to identifying CB.

I do have doubts CB is the guy.

It's almost become tedious to hear over and over he is CERTAIN he is guilty but we haven't charged him yet.

 

[johnymac1]

all is solved, this chick is on the case

 

[Mister Carlton]

all is solved, this chick is on the case

Massive forehead

 

[owen87]

We'll just have to ignore also that there was a dead body in a car boot with only 3000 klm on it that Brueckner hadn't hired.

Yes. The most scrutinised parents on the planet managed to conceal a dead body for weeks, then sneak it in to their rental car and dispose of it without anyone ever noticing.

Perfectly logical.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes. The most scrutinised parents on the planet managed to conceal a dead body for weeks, then sneak it in to their rental car and dispose of it without anyone ever noticing.

Perfectly logical.

Most people I know are asleep at 3 am. Not too much scrutiny then.. Besides someone put a dead body in a boot. Most likely candidate is the person who had control of the car.

 

[bomberclifford]

Perfectly logical.

100% probability, mate.
Just not admissible in court because dogs can’t talk.

 

[owen87]

Most people I know are asleep at 3 am

Most people you know aren't the most scrutinised parents on the planet.

1. Hide the body for weeks without anyone finding it.
2. Get the body in to the car without anyone noticing.
3. Drive the car to <location> without anyone noticing.
4. Unload the body from the car without anyone noticing.
5. Bury the body at <location> without anyone noticing.
6. Have body remain hidden for 15 years without anyone finding it.
7. Go 15 years without ever making a single slip-up in relation to the above.

Any single one of those are unlikely, the entire chain? Highly unlikely.

Besides someone put a dead body in a boot.

Nope. For someone who says they're an expert in quantitative methods you consistently struggle to understand what the cadaver dog (inadmissible) evidence represents.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Exactly. But I'm happy to go with 94%

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Most people you know aren't the most scrutinised parents on the planet.

1. Hide the body for weeks without anyone finding it.
2. Get the body in to the car without anyone noticing.
3. Drive the car to <location> without anyone noticing.
4. Unload the body from the car without anyone noticing.
5. Bury the body at <location> without anyone noticing.
6. Have body remain hidden for 15 years without anyone finding it.
7. Go 15 years without ever making a single slip-up in relation to the above.

Any single one of those are unlikely, the entire chain? Highly unlikely.



Nope. For someone who says they're an expert in quantitative methods you consistently struggle to understand what the cadaver dog (inadmissible) evidence represents.

Put the body in travel bag ONCE and then to freezer. Remove from freezer again ONCE at night and place said travel bag into boot. They travelled 11000 in that car whilst in their care. They weren't followed and the PJ retrospectively sought to trace their movements using phone evidence after they became arguido and have identified several remote region locations of interest all too late.

I know completely what the cadavar & blood dog evidence means. It means there was a 94% chance a dead body was in the boot. That's what it means. Had it been an unmixed DNA sample K & G 15/19 they would have been charged and convicted. The fact it got mixed with other DNA meant they weren't. That's all. Not innocent. Not free of suspicion but unable to proceed with charges. That so many fail to comprehend such a simple principle is disturbing

 

[owen87]

That's what it means.

Nope. Still wrong.

That so many fail to comprehend such a simple principle is disturbing

You fail to comprehend a lot, yet try to tell everyone how smart you are. That's disturbing.

Be a good day for all of us actually interested in this case when you get bored of spamming this thread with your un-sourced stream of conspiracy consciousness.

 

[bomberclifford]

Had it been an unmixed DNA sample K & G 15/19 they would have been charged and convicted. The fact it got mixed with other DNA meant they weren't. That's all. Not innocent. Not free of suspicion but unable to proceed with charges. That so many fail to comprehend such a simple principle is disturbing

So where did the additional DNA come from?

If it came from some unknown source, not connected to Madeleine McCann, could this not also apply to ALL the DNA found in the boot of the car?

(ie just because there was DNA it doesn't mean it was Madeleine's, nor does it even mean there was a dead body in the boot of the car. There are other, far more likely, explanations for the DNA found in the car.)

 

[bomberclifford]

I know completely what the cadavar & blood dog evidence means. It means there was a 94% chance a dead body was in the boot. That's what it means.

No it doesn't. You are categorically wrong on this.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So where did the additional DNA come from?

If it came from some unknown source, not connected to Madeleine McCann, could this not also apply to ALL the DNA found in the boot of the car?

(ie just because there was DNA it doesn't mean it was Madeleine's, nor does it even mean there was a dead body in the boot of the car. There are other, far more likely, explanations for the DNA found in the car.)

15 of 19 match is enough in many to most jurisdictions ito say that the DNA was Maddie's absent it being mixed But somehow other DNA mixed with it. Perhaps the nappies of twins? which were put in boot to dispose of. Who knows. I don't. But Dr Perlin has software and techniques to untangle them but wasn't used. I'm no DNA expert.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

No it doesn't. You are categorically wrong on this.

Well we can agree to disagree then.

 

[owen87]

I'm no DNA expert.

You say this.

15 of 19 match is enough

Then say things like this.

You obviously do think you know these things.

 

[bomberclifford]

Q: "So you're saying the probability of there being a dead body in the boot of the car is 94%?"
ARB: "Yes"

Q: "Why is that?"
ARB: "Because cadaver dogs are known to have a strike accuracy of 94%."

Q: "So how does that translate to the probability of a dead body being in the boot of the car?"
ARB: "It just does. Everyone knows it."

Q: "If this was correct then there would have certainly been evidence of a dead body being in the car."
ARB: "There was DNA found in the boot of the car."

Q: "But there was only ever inconclusive, mixed DNA found in the boot"
ARB: "Yes"

Q: "So how do you account for the additional DNA in the boot?"
ARB: "Well it could have been nappies"


The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Q: "So you're saying the probability of there being a dead body in the boot of the car is 94%?"
ARB: "Yes"

Q: "Why is that?"
ARB: "Because cadaver dogs are known to have a strike accuracy of 94%."

Q: "So how does that translate to the probability of a dead body being in the boot of the car?"
ARB: "It just does. Everyone knows it."

Q: "If this was correct then there would have certainly been evidence of a dead body being in the car."
ARB: "There was DNA found in the boot of the car."

Q: "But there was only ever inconclusive, mixed DNA found in the boot"
ARB: "Yes"

Q: "So how do you account for the additional DNA in the boot?"
ARB: "Well it could have been nappies"


The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

The accuracy is 94%. They indicated where DNA WAS found. Therefore it is not a negative result and remains a 94% chance it was DNA of a dead body being their historical success. For you to exclude the 94% you would have to have no DNA. Understand? There was DNA even quite a bit of hair I read. So 94% remains true. There was also the clear ancillary evidence to support that it was a dead body of vile lingering dead body smell for quite some time afterwards that required the boot being repeatedly aired (in evidence) but I've not adjusted probability for that as can't be measured. Probably should

I have no ideas how other DNA became mixed. That it was in no way affects the %. These dogs ONLY indicate for decomposing human flesh not POOH. But mucus membrane DNA could be in POOH which when dropped on the boot floor could mix with dead body DNA as one possibility. But were it POOH alone they wouldn't indicate at all because it's not decomposing human flesh.

The probability remains 94%. I'm sorry but it does. Indeed given the 15/19 match the probability would need to increase because that matches Maddie but just got mixed.

 

[bomberclifford]

The accuracy is 94%. They indicated where DNA WAS found.

So far so good...

Therefore it is not a negative result and remains a 94% chance it was DNA

Yes, the dog indicated and they found some DNA.

... of a dead body being their historical success.

... and you've lost it. Your leap from a cadaver dog 'indicating' to 'dead body' leaves out the multiple possibilities of other reasons the dog may have indicated, one of which you yourself even floated as a reason for the presence of 'other' DNA.

These other factors that you haven't accounted for have a significant impact on what you're calling 'probability'. You're brushing them aside as if they were inconsequential, yet they also need to exist to explain the additional DNA found. Unless you're suggesting that there were two different dead bodies in the boot of that car?

For you to exclude the 94% you would have to have no DNA. Understand? There was DNA even quite a bit of hair I read. So 94% remains true.

It was inconclusive DNA.
It cannot even be said the DNA was from a cadaver.
If there was hair, then a single strand of it would be able to provide an unmixed DNA sample.
Besides, no one is "excluding the 94%", it's an accuracy rating on the cadaver dogs. It pretty much ends there.

There was also the clear ancillary evidence to support that it was a dead body of vile lingering dead body smell for quite some time afterwards that required the boot being repeatedly aired (in evidence) but I've not adjusted probability for that as can't be measured.

Oh my, I think he's finally getting it...

Probably should

... nope.

I have no ideas how other DNA became mixed. That it was in no way affects the %. These dogs ONLY indicate for decomposing human flesh not POOH. But mucus membrane DNA could be in POOH which when dropped on the boot floor could mix with dead body DNA as one possibility. But were it POOH alone they wouldn't indicate at all because it's not decomposing human flesh.

Fecal matter decomposes and dogs can, and have, indicated on it. As they have on vomit, and other bodily fluids. Even finding blood doesn't automatically lead to a conclusion of a dead body.

The probability remains 94%. I'm sorry but it does.

The problem is that you're using the word 'probability' yet seem to have little understanding of what it is or how it's calculated.


You're claiming that it is a virtual certainty that there was a dead body in the boot of the car and that it was "100% probable" that the body was Madeleine McCann's, but that this is somehow not enough to get a conviction, nor even get a deeper investigation into the McCanns. (Obviously, apart from select nutjobs on the internet.) Then when asked about the presence of other DNA you propose nappies as a possible answer, without a skerrick of awareness that this possibility applies to ALL the DNA found in the boot of the car.


At first I thought it was just you using hyperbole to pump up the case, but it appears you actually believe this rubbish to such an extent that you can't even see when you've tripped yourself up.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So far so good...



Yes, the dog indicated and they found some DNA.



... and you've lost it. Your leap from a cadaver dog 'indicating' to 'dead body' leaves out the multiple possibilities of other reasons the dog may have indicated, one of which you yourself even floated as a reason for the presence of 'other' DNA.

These other factors that you haven't accounted for have a significant impact on what you're calling 'probability'. You're brushing them aside as if they were inconsequential, yet they also need to exist to explain the additional DNA found. Unless you're suggesting that there were two different dead bodies in the boot of that car?



It was inconclusive DNA.
It cannot even be said the DNA was from a cadaver.
If there was hair, then a single strand of it would be able to provide an unmixed DNA sample.
Besides, no one is "excluding the 94%", it's an accuracy rating on the cadaver dogs. It pretty much ends there.



Oh my, I think he's finally getting it...



... nope.



Fecal matter decomposes and dogs can, and have, indicated on it. As they have on vomit, and other bodily fluids. Even finding blood doesn't automatically lead to a conclusion of a dead body.



The problem is that you're using the word 'probability' yet seem to have little understanding of what it is or how it's calculated.


You're claiming that it is a virtual certainty that there was a dead body in the boot of the car and that it was "100% probable" that the body was Madeleine McCann's, but that this is somehow not enough to get a conviction, nor even get a deeper investigation into the McCanns. (Obviously, apart from select nutjobs on the internet.) Then when asked about the presence of other DNA you propose nappies as a possible answer, without a skerrick of awareness that this possibility applies to ALL the DNA found in the boot of the car.


At first I thought it was just you using hyperbole to pump up the case, but it appears you actually believe this rubbish to such an extent that you can't even see when you've tripped yourself up.

All the other possibilities are part of the 6% inaccuracies. You can't double count. If they are 94% accurate then it's 94% accuracy of detecting a dead body smell and therefore a dead body. If its not a negative test then probability remains unaltered at the least.

Look I simply can't explain it any simpler than what I have. You don't won't to believe my conclusions then don't. I'm not here to convince trollers. Better things to do with my time than that I'm sorry. You and your mate have just honed in on supporting McCann for reasons entirely unrelated to evidence and can't deviate from the emotive driven choice you made at outset. That's fine don't. Me well I couldn't give a stuff who did it but If I'm going to analyse it will be objectively on the evidence including probability analysis which I can involve in this case as I have. We can once again agree to disagree.

 

[jason_recliner]

All the other possibilities are part of the 6% inaccuracies. You can't double count. If they are 94% accurate then it's 94% accuracy of detecting a dead body smell and therefore a dead body. If its not a negative test then probability remains unaltered at the least.

Look I simply can't explain it any simpler than what I have. You don't won't to believe my conclusions then don't. I'm not here to convince trollers. Better things to do with my time than that I'm sorry. You and your mate have just honed in on supporting McCann for reasons entirely unrelated to evidence and can't deviate from the emotive driven choice you made at outset. That's fine don't. Me well I couldn't give a stuff who did it but If I'm going to analyse it will be objectively on the evidence including probability analysis which I can involve in this case as I have. We can once again agree to disagree.

OMG how did you get through life?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

OMG how did you get through life?

Quite comfortably thanks.

 

[owen87]

I charge $350 ph for about 10-15 hrs a week on tax & financial related matters which occasionally might include probability analysis.

They should be asking for a refund if so.

 

[owen87]

Better things to do with my time

Many of us would appreciate you using your time in a way that involves not posting in this thread.

I follow it for the news updates, not for the latest stream of consciousness unsourced post from you.