Tony Bennett
Rookie
- Dec 19, 2012
- 45
- 3
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Unsolved Madeleine McCann
- Thread starter Bunk Moreland
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I think that you will find that the conversation has only just begun!
Let us take your obfuscations one by one. You do have a habit of producing massive screeds of unreferenced quotes and even then the quotes are frequently taken out of context:
YOU SAID:clear evidence from Mr Grime himself, especially in the rogatory interview he gave to Leicestershire Police in April 2008, that Eddie is trained primarily to alert to the scent of a human corpse, while Keela is trained primarily to search for human blood
I REPLY: Please provide the exact and full quotes where he states this.
YOU SAID:clear evidence from Mr Grime himself, especially in the rogatory interview he gave to Leicestershire Police in April 2008, that Eddie’s training was based primarily on him being trained to alert to the presence (or past presence) of various body parts from dead persons
I REPLY: Please provide the exact and full quotes where he states this.
YOU SAID:clear evidence from Mr Grime himself, both in the video of him searching various premises and items in Praia da Luz, especially in the rogatory interview he gave to Leicestershire Police in April 2008, that Eddie alerted to the past presence of a corpse
I REPLY: Please provide the exact and full quotes where he states this.
YOU SAID:the quote from the Attorney-General’s report, on which the McCanns rely so much and from which their spokesman quotes so much, that Eddie detected ‘human cadaver scent’, whilst Keela detected blood and body fluids
I REPLY: Please provide the exact and full quote in context where this is stated.
YOU SAID:two concessions by me, namely (a) that Eddie’s training included, inter alia, alerting to dried blood and (b) that it was possible (even though that is not Eddie’s main purpose) that Eddie could alert to dried blood alone
I REPLY: You are almost there. Eddie will always react to dried blood!
YOU SAID:you have been unable to cite any instance where Eddie has given a false alert, i.e. alerted to a human corpse when there was (or never had been) a human corpse present in a certain location
I REPLY: There are many indcidents where Eddie and Keela have indicated that Cadaver odour possibly existed. It is not possible to decide whether these are false alerts or true alerts. There is no evidence I have seen of a fair tests on Eddie and Keela using double blind studies.
YOU SAID:disagreement as to whether Eddie was correct in his 13 alerts to human cadaver scent (as I say) or made a series of 13 errors (as you say)
I REPLY: I have not said that Eddie made such errors. I have said that in view of the statistics involved, information that we know from the Garage search together with research on unconscious cuing, and finally the possibility of serial error, that such identifications might well be found under cross examination and with the use of experts to be inconclusive.
When we see the full quotes requested above, we will be able to see what the basis for your argument is and whether it provides a substantial foundation for the rest of your suppositions.
Copy the address of the picture (from your computer top address bar.
Click on the Picture Frame Icon fourth from right above in the bar that begins B I U
Paste the address into the box. Return.
Can you sho me where you answered the current open question about reliability of scent dogs. I cannot see a clear answer to that, but I can see many research papers that give a variety of answers to that question- none of which are 100% reliability.
My questions is- how accurate are these dogs and what evidence do you rely on for your beliefs?
Tony Bennett
Rookie
- Dec 19, 2012
- 45
- 3
- AFL Club
- Richmond
My guess is that you will probably try to post a photograph of Leonor Cipriano with black eyes and bruises. All I will say on this is that, if this is what you wish to do, would everyone here please note that there are two contradictory accounts of how she got those black eyes and bruises: 1. she was assaulted by police officers, or 2. she was assaulted by fellow-prisoners outraged with her crime of killnjg her own daughter.
If you are posting again here, sadie, could you also please explain why you deliberately misled posters visiting this thread by falsely claiming that Joana Cipriano had been 'abducted' - when you knew perfectly well that she and her brother are now serving 16-year jail terms for murdering her?
Tony Bennett
Rookie
- Dec 19, 2012
- 45
- 3
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Right, one final time, and I won't repeat this again.
I will answer that question, your 13th to date I think, when and only when you have the courtesy to answer what has been only my second question to you.
And people will note that you are running away.
I asked you several questions well before you asked any of me. You have eventually addressed one and have now admitted that you were wrong. My current question from that list is about dog reliability- in fact the first question I asked on December 20th (see list below)
I believe that you have no basis for claiming that Eddie and Keela are 100% accurate. Please provide your reasoning for believing such an incredible fact.
My December 20th Post:
Please provide evidence that the Dogs have no positive or negative false responses as claimed so often.
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.
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%.
Please show that you understand the concept of 'serial error'.
Please show that you understand the process of unconscious cuing.
How effective do you thnk the dogs are- what are their error rates? Do you have independent evidence of this rather than a collection of anecdotes?
(A note to the onlookers- asking these questions on JillHaverns results in an immediate ban before the questions can be addressed.)
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/madeleine-mccann.983295/page-8#post-26715454
There you go again making up factoids to impress people.
How have the 'McCanns' spent £3- £6 million? How can you say it has been 'raised from a very generous British public?
As usual you use information in a very strange manner.
I believe that the McCanns used over £1 million from libel damages and over £1 million from the book by Kate McCann (advance, proceeds and serialisation in the Press) via their company set up to search for Madeleine. In the early days they may have raised about £1 million from the general public. The British Government allocated £3 million pounds for the current Scotland Yard investigation.
So in summary, £1 million from donations, the rest from other sources including libel damages and publication of the book. Separately the UK Government has set up an enquiry.
You bend facts so easily you forget how easy it is for others to see you doing it.
Seriously? Get out and get a life. Watch some football, sex your wife, spank the monkey...anything. You guys seriously have too much time on your hands
Your admin invited us here- take it up with them.
Once again you call me a liar.
A court case decided on TORTURED out evidence is NOT a fair judgement. It is NO JUDGEMENT AT ALL. There was NO EVIDENCE against either Leonor, or against her brother Joao, except for the TORTURED out evidence from Leonors partner Leandro. This was rescinded and I believe that Amaral is being charged by Leandro in another torture trial.
- Joana Cipriano = missing child. Not searched for properly because at an early stage, Amaral and Cristavao decided on the tale that she was murdered by her Mother and Uncle and fed to the pigs. NO FORENSICS, NO EVIDENCE
- Leonor Cipriano = Joanas Mother
- Joao = Joanas uncle and Leonors brother
- Leandro = Joanas stepfather and Leonors partner
Much propaganda was put out against Leonor and Joao, including the accusation that not only had they murdered Joana, because she caught brother and sister having sex, but then cut up her body. The story goes on that they cut up her body, stored it in the fridge, and fed it to their pigs. A story that caused hatred against the couple throughout Portugal and set peoples minds against Leonor and her brother.
Illicit sex + lurid "murder" + "cruelty" against a child. A sure recipe for a best selling book!
Of interest is the fact that in the trial against Leonor and Joao, both accused of Joanas murder, there was dissention against the verdict.
Now I am doing this from memory. Please correct me if I am wrong below.
At the trial against Leonor and Joao there was a small jury and three Judges were part of that Jury. Everyone, bar one, went along with the PJ story, despite there being NO EVIDENCE apart from that of Leandro. Leandros evidence was again tortured out evidence - so NOT REAL EVIDENCE and it was rescinded later. Oh there were the confessions from Leonor and Joao, again tortured out, so NOT REAL EVIDENCE.
NOTHING ELSE apart from the story by Amaral and Co.
Remember Leonor and Joao had been thoroughly reviled in the press and media. So everyone in the Jury went along with the PJ story against this couple. Everyone except one of the three Judges, who refused to put his name to the verdict. And he protested ... a brave man, in such a country!
Let us remember that Portugal had been a Fascist country until about 1975, when there was an uprising [the Carnation Revolution] and, on the surface anyhow, PT became free of fascism. Seems, however, that in certain sections of the Judiciary and Police the old ways remained. Prior to 1975, torture was rife, people were locked up without trial, and some vanished off ther face of the earth. Believed assasinated.
Also, Tony, why are Amnesty International so interested in the case?
Additionally with the exception a 5 year break after the PJ let a suspect off with warnings, there were a total of 7 abductions in PT, spaced at approx 2 year intervals. What about them Tony? Can you not see the probability of the links?
So Tony, I think there are considerable factual pointers to my being correct.
Grogg
Norm Smith Medallist
Dude.
Seriously.
You need to move on.
We get it.
Bennett's a squib, you da man.
E cred confirmed.
Seriously.
You need to move on.
We get it.
Bennett's a squib, you da man.
E cred confirmed.
Dude.
Seriously.
You need to move on.
We get it.
Bennett's a squib, you da man.
E cred confirmed.
This is not an attempt at gaining credibility for myself before a small group of Aussie Football fans. It is a chance for Mr Bennett to ether display his excellent sources and supports for his beliefs about this case, or be forced to admit in front of his acolytes that he is in serious error.
He is in a dilemma- does he continue to argue and be shown to be in error or a charlatan, or does he run away and leave the same impression.
Any attempt to do this elsewhere is made impossible either by Mr Bennet claiming that a Pro/Fencesitter forum is prejudiced against him becasue of its moderators, and the fact that anyone challenging him on an Anti site would be banned within minutes for insisting that he answers questions truthfully.
What is happening here is the tale of the Kings New Clothes- without the protection of friendly mods, Mr Bennett is shown to be bereft of any forensic clothing- all of what he says is based on myth and misunderstanding.
More photos of Leonor Cipriano after her torture. The prison Governor, Dr Ana, a very brave and humane woman, made sure Leonor saw a medical Doctor and ordered these photos be taken.
Once agin thanks to Bren
http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/01/06/police-brutality-totally-unacceptable/
THe PJ tried to say that the bruises were caused because Leonor threw herself down the stairs. Medical opinions pointed out that the bruises were not caused by a fall down the stairs. The Courts agreed that she had been tortured. A confession was tortured out of her.
quote]Joana Cipriano was aged 8 when she was reported missing, two days after the event, by her mother. Nearly a year later, after both she and her brother Joao made voluntary and detailed confessions to mudering her in her house, this evil pairt were sentenced to 16 years 8 months and 16 years respectively for their awful crimes. [/quote]
You still think that Leonors confession was a freely given one, do you Tony? Totally voluntary?
The original sentence was 20 years for Joao and 19 years for Leonor, reduced later to that mentioned above in Tonys quote
Once agin thanks to Bren
http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/01/06/police-brutality-totally-unacceptable/
THe PJ tried to say that the bruises were caused because Leonor threw herself down the stairs. Medical opinions pointed out that the bruises were not caused by a fall down the stairs. The Courts agreed that she had been tortured. A confession was tortured out of her.
quote]Joana Cipriano was aged 8 when she was reported missing, two days after the event, by her mother. Nearly a year later, after both she and her brother Joao made voluntary and detailed confessions to mudering her in her house, this evil pairt were sentenced to 16 years 8 months and 16 years respectively for their awful crimes. [/quote]
You still think that Leonors confession was a freely given one, do you Tony? Totally voluntary?
The original sentence was 20 years for Joao and 19 years for Leonor, reduced later to that mentioned above in Tonys quote
Grogg
Norm Smith Medallist
Bullshit
Yeah, sorry this is more bullshit. You have had the chance to add something new and interesting to a subject many of us are relatively unfamiliar with and all that seems to be forthcoming is petty sniping and boring personal feuding. Ad infinitum.
see above.
'
Circular arguments do nothing for the interest of the thread. they merely facilitate further boredom for the readership. As a self proclaimed accademic, I'm, sure you can see this viewpoint.
Thank you for your comments. I shall act on them appropriately.
There is nothing Bullshit about what debunker is doing.
He is righting long lived injustices and cruelties shown to the family of a missing child.
Cruel, thoughtless and provoking comments. Comments that because of their libellous inaccuracies and sometimes cruelness and vileness may cost us all our FREEDOM OF SPEECH. There is already talk about it.
Whether you are interested in this case or not, that is a matter that affects us all.
Tony Bennett is not directly responsible for many of these vile comments but he is a main leader. It will be Bennett and his ilk that YOU have to thank if he loses YOUR present day priviledges of Freedom of Speech. That seriously affects YOU and me!
Without freedom of speech, we are heading towards a Fascist state, or Communism.
I dont want either. Do you?
For others less intellectually challenged and rude than Grogg, let me explain the tactics.
Accusations against the McCanns made by the Anti-McCann posters rest entirely on Dog Alerts, DNA analysis interpretation as strong evidence and otherwise rely on hearsay, circumstantial or otherwise weak evidence.
If the dog alerts do provide strong evidence of death in those places AND the DNA evidence is interpreted as Antis do, the some case might exist against the McCanns.
Now it is provable (if trustworthy and factually correct sources are used) that the Dog Alets and the Antis DNA interpretation are factually wrong.
If there is no real evidence from the Dogs and the DNA, there is no case at all.
Antis are very reluctant to address these issues and continually avoid doing so. When forced to read and understand the evidence (as in the case here with Mr Bennett and Eddie alerting to Blood) they may be able to understand why their case is so shaky. It is only in neutral fora like this where their fixed false ideas can be forensically opposed.
Mr Bennett will continue to kick dirt in peoples' faces byposting pages of irrelevant information, but he will not defend the key and core claim of his accusation- that the Dog Alerts prove death, and that the DNA shows that Madeleine (or her body) was in the car three weeks after her last sighting.
If he will not defend the dogs and DNA, he cannot be taken seriously.
Accusations against the McCanns made by the Anti-McCann posters rest entirely on Dog Alerts, DNA analysis interpretation as strong evidence and otherwise rely on hearsay, circumstantial or otherwise weak evidence.
If the dog alerts do provide strong evidence of death in those places AND the DNA evidence is interpreted as Antis do, the some case might exist against the McCanns.
Now it is provable (if trustworthy and factually correct sources are used) that the Dog Alets and the Antis DNA interpretation are factually wrong.
If there is no real evidence from the Dogs and the DNA, there is no case at all.
Antis are very reluctant to address these issues and continually avoid doing so. When forced to read and understand the evidence (as in the case here with Mr Bennett and Eddie alerting to Blood) they may be able to understand why their case is so shaky. It is only in neutral fora like this where their fixed false ideas can be forensically opposed.
Mr Bennett will continue to kick dirt in peoples' faces byposting pages of irrelevant information, but he will not defend the key and core claim of his accusation- that the Dog Alerts prove death, and that the DNA shows that Madeleine (or her body) was in the car three weeks after her last sighting.
If he will not defend the dogs and DNA, he cannot be taken seriously.
Grogg
Norm Smith Medallist
Debunker can post whatever he likes as free speech dictates.
He can also be called out on it when it is boring, exceptionially circular and adds little to the interest of the topic.
I have no problem with petty personal feuds, but sometimes they are best left to pm's and out of the public domain.
There has been some worthwhile discussion here, but there has been a massive amount of tedium to wade through as well.
He can also be called out on it when it is boring, exceptionially circular and adds little to the interest of the topic.
I have no problem with petty personal feuds, but sometimes they are best left to pm's and out of the public domain.
There has been some worthwhile discussion here, but there has been a massive amount of tedium to wade through as well.
In solidarity with the mods, I don't think this is an appropriate forum for heated debates on the topic.
It started off as an innocent thread on what is mainly a sports forum and all hell broke loose.
It would be very hard for someone with just a general interest to understand the case and not be bogged down by minutiae and distortions of information.
If any of the Aussies has a genuine question, I'll try my best to repond.
It started off as an innocent thread on what is mainly a sports forum and all hell broke loose.
It would be very hard for someone with just a general interest to understand the case and not be bogged down by minutiae and distortions of information.
If any of the Aussies has a genuine question, I'll try my best to repond.
Grogg, mate
You have no idea how important it is to Justice in the Mccann case and for Freedom of Speech, such as you are using, that this discussion/argument is allowed to continue. It is intellectual and may appear boring, but is necessary
I try and throw in a bit of background interest to lighten the thread for the benefit of readers, and to make you all aware of some of the awful things that have happened historically in PT.
Unfortuantely Bennett will almost certainly use my input to waffle on about that, rather than tackle the real meat of this thread.
The trouble about my putting posts up, that are more interesting to the majority, is that important responses to debunkers questions may not happen. That is because Bennett will use my posts to divert the attention, by going off at a tangent.
If the questions are difficult, he diverts attention, or uses his other tricks.
He wasn't a (unsuccessful, I think?) politician for nothing. Please correct me, if I am wrong on this.
THis is his modus operandi along with a few other tricks. Bennett never answers difficult questions directly... he just waffles, diverts the attention, or uses dubious sources.
You have no idea how important it is to Justice in the Mccann case and for Freedom of Speech, such as you are using, that this discussion/argument is allowed to continue. It is intellectual and may appear boring, but is necessary
I try and throw in a bit of background interest to lighten the thread for the benefit of readers, and to make you all aware of some of the awful things that have happened historically in PT.
Unfortuantely Bennett will almost certainly use my input to waffle on about that, rather than tackle the real meat of this thread.
The trouble about my putting posts up, that are more interesting to the majority, is that important responses to debunkers questions may not happen. That is because Bennett will use my posts to divert the attention, by going off at a tangent.
If the questions are difficult, he diverts attention, or uses his other tricks.
He wasn't a (unsuccessful, I think?) politician for nothing. Please correct me, if I am wrong on this.
THis is his modus operandi along with a few other tricks. Bennett never answers difficult questions directly... he just waffles, diverts the attention, or uses dubious sources.
- Status
