[quote=Bubblesxx;22367]When she is found and it is proven that RM had NOTHING to do with it at all in the slightest (which is what he is claiming) then Brian will not have a leg to stand on.
He can always claim it was some other missing child he was picking up on, and/or that RM is still being shielded by the police, etc.
Or just tweak an old drawing to put some appropriate clues in.
And just what *is* 'the scent of a dead body'?Originally Posted by Bubblesxx
The smell of a body rotting, the smell of leaking body fluids some time after death, or what?
If someone was only briefly in a place after death, what smell could they leave that was different to the smell left by someone alive?
As to the claims for DNA in RM's house, there were also claims of forensic findings in a car hired long after the disappearance by the parents. I wouldn't believe anything in the press until officially confirmed, since it seems clear that they commonly make things up and pretend it came from 'a police source'.
You are refering to Joanna Cipriano. If it was proved that her mother had nothing to do with her death, why is she serving 16 years for her murder?
Oh, you might want to use the word 'allegedly' as the police in the alleged abuse have not been convicted.
Something like that. I heard on an update that they had to use a second set of sniffer dogs as the dogs had used the wrong scent? I assume that as the body dies and 'leaks fluids etc' a different scent is given off..... The dogs had been given the 'dead' scent to trace her, therefore if she had been alive and in the places that they looked, the dogs would not have picked that up. Obviously the course is not 100% reliable.
I found this on a news article website -
"Neither of us can be certain whether or not Leonor Cipriano killed her own daugher; but, if the police had a cast-iron case against her, why did they put her conviction at risk by spending 48 hours beating her to a pulp to coerce her into signing a confession? Just for the sadistic fun of it? In any decent country, a confession extracted by violence would prompt a retrial, because the conviction would be deemed "unsafe", which it certainly is.
No similarities between that case and Maddie's case? 1. Neither child has been found, alive or dead. 2. Both mothers ran poster campaigns to publicize the daughter's abduction. (Why risk antagonizing the police if you're guilty?) 3. The blood "evidence" in the freezer strikes me as being similar to the drop of blood in Maddie's bedroom and the alleged hairs in the boot of the McCann's hired car. Such "evidence" is open to misinterpretation, which is why the police case against the McCanns is hopeless. Only by beating Kate to a pulp to extract a false confession could they hope to gain a conviction! Just as in the case of Leonor Cipriano.
Have you noticed that a second senior detective has recently been removed from the McCann case? He's due to stand trial for beating up an innocent suspect and breaking one of his limbs!
I wouldn't trust those scumbags of Portuguese police as far as I could throw them, and I firmly believe Leonor Cipriano deserves a retrial.
And where are the missing children? Who are the police protecting? A rich paedophile or themselves? Both, is my guess."
You should try and understand information, or at least check it before you post it as fact.
Unlike searches for live people, cadaver dogs are not given scents to follow. They are trained differently from the outset to identify the smells of decay coming through soils, etc. These scents are not tied to specific individuals as they are with live searches.
http://leerburg.com/missing.htm
http://dogs.about.com/cs/searchandrescue/a/cadaver_dogs.htm?iam=dpile_100
Raise money for Robert and Susan Lancaster:
Fundraising for Robert Lancaster
But you understand the difference between a factual news item, and an opinion piece, don't you?
Raise money for Robert and Susan Lancaster:
Fundraising for Robert Lancaster
Of course I do.
And?
He was convicted.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1913175.ece
I was showing what someone else had written. Using an open mind, stop being so rude. With your ANDS al the time.
Could you please direct me to where it says he was convicted? I read it through - I can see where is says he was charged but no mention of a conviction?
For a slightly less biased piece than you quoted before try reading this
I'd managed to understand that much, but I was just wondering why you bothered.
Unless you made it clear that you fully agreed with the person but didn't see any point writing your own opinions in your own words, there might not be a great deal point responding to the quoted text if there wasn't obviously anyone around to respond in its defence
I already know that people have all kinds of opinions, often founded on prejudice or misinformation. If I actually wanted to read such opinions elsewhere, I'd go elsewhere and look for them.
The person writing the thing you quoted doesn't seem to have had a terribly open mind.
Charged? Does that not mean anything to you?
Neither do you.
Yes. It means charged. Suspected of a crime with enough evidence to warrant a trial, but innocent until proven guilty.
It does not mean, as you stated 'convicted'
Convicted means having been found guilty of a crime.
What do the words 'charged' and 'convicted' mean to you?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks