Blue_Tackler wrote:
Or 1,762 signers who have ignored the significant evidence she is not there and are out to cause mischief for the McCanns.

Barnfish wrote:
I say the suspicion lies with those who have lost their daughter, say that they will 'leave no stone unturned' and then chose not to press for the legal turning of those stones.

It appears to me the ''who is he'' comment from Dr K, is not the response, the response is to be 'where did he say she might be, let's get it checked out' unless of course she wants to leave 'stones unturned'.

Barnfish wrote:
The same evidence that the McCanns poo poo in other aspects of the case/search.

Edit To ask for clarification if there is a body or not under the drive is not causing mischief, it's wanting the police to look.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
It is hardly a stone left unturned when the police with dogs have searched the place and no expert is prepared to say there is a body from the results of the radar. Do you think a judge should grant a warrant to search based on Birch's evidence alone?

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Are the McCanns being critical of evidence that may lead them to being convicted of Madeleine's death or evidence that is a red herring diverting from what really happened with an abduction? We do not know, but going by their behaviour and the lack of opportunity and ability to accidentally kill their daughter and hide the body I say abduction is far, far more likely.

To ask for a dig where ground radar has not found traces of a body nor have sniffer dogs nor is there signs of ground disturbance is mischievous.

Barnfish wrote:
Good grief Barnfish, THE McCANNS don't trust the police or the dogs, they have stated that the dog handler was corrupting the search of the Renault.
So why would they trust the police/dog search at Murat's garden/drive.
Surely that's all the more reason for them to press to look.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
The McCanns do trust some police, they were unhappy about the dog handler and they way he worked and so do not trust him. They are also unhappy about the conclusions some have drawn from the results. They know of a miscarriage of justice over the results of cadaver dogs. They also have various explanation's as to why the dogs sniffed positive which are perfectly reasonable, such as Kate's work, the other kids and the blood from the Portuguese scientist at the apartment. They are all causes for false positives. The dogs have done nothing wrong, its some of the people that the McCanns are unhappy with.

The dogs ability to detect smell is very accurate and so when it finds nothing at Murat's drive, a place where there is no possible cause of a false positive, it is now reasonable to say it is a negative. If the dog smells nothing there is a beyond reasonable doubt there is nothing. Where it smells something needs significant further investigation.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the dogs smelling something does not necessarily mean anything, Christ, even the dog handler in his report's conclusion has the same point to make.

From what I've read, Murat's own dogs were going crazy over the spot on the drive and he was forced to put down extra rubble etc.

It's nonsensical imo to suggest that digging up the drive is mischievous.

It does NOT cause any distraction, as doing so would be conclusive one way or the other, and does not require other lines of investigation to be put on hold for the brief time it would take to perform.

Why are you, Barnfish, trying to put the onus of doing it onto people other than those who are supposed to be officially conducting the search?

Barnfish says
So how do they know that the dogs were used appropriately and the handler was not working in a way that would make them unhappy, at the search to Murat's land?
Thus they have motive not to trust 'some' police, so why do they trust the police/dog handler that checked out Murat's driveway/garden but not the ones that checked the Renault?

Excuse me for thinking that they only trust the police that conclude that they are hunky dory, if the police show any doubt, these police are not to be trusted.

Barnfish with all the good will towards the McCanns in the world, can you not see how this appears?
IE if the police find what we like then they are good, if they find something dodgy looking 'we don't trust them',.

Which appears to translate into 'we like the police under our conditions'.

Blue_Tackler wrote:

I can see why there should be a dig. It is the only way of satisfying certain people Madeleine is not there.

I can see why the McCanns are not pandering to amateurs, internet sleuths and McCann haters. Even if no body is found the accusations will become she was there and has been moved again. There is no winning for them.

I can see why the police have not dug there and no warrant to dig has been granted.

So my solution is for the amateurs, internet sleuths and McCann haters to get on with it.

As for liking the police only under our conditions, that happens with most investigations. The same with court verdicts. It is a travesty if someone does not get the verdict they want, justice has been done if they do.

The McCanns behaviour through out is of people who want their daughter found and they get pissed of by cranks, amateurs and the police making mistakes. Then like us they think certain things should be done on a certain way.

Barnfish wrote:

Barnfish say's...

So let's get this straight, The McCanns are not on trial in a court.
Thus they have no reason to select particular police or 'amateur' investigators for mistrust.

The people in question are trying to find their daughter, they ain't out to corrupt evidence.

The Renault search is available to watch on YouTube, No independent dog handler has 'as far as I know' stated that the search was corrupt.

I have watched the YouTube footage and seen no falsifying of evidence of cheating, the very fact that samples of DNA were later collected from that Renault shows that the search was good.

I find it utterly unbelievable that the McCanns would question this mans method when he's a very well respected police dog handler, he has never implied that the McCanns were guilty of anything, it's just that the McCanns don't like what he found.

So we are now into the realms of the McCanns selecting certain situations to discredit police evidence.

They only discredit police evidence that puts them possibly in the frame.

Thus if the police dog would have sniffed something on Murat's land the McCanns would likely have dismissed that as either bad police practice or evidence that has fallen off of someone else.

On the Renault search when the dog ran away, if the handler would have simply 'moved on' to the next car, thus the Renault not being sniffed 'all the way around' thus nothing found the McCanns would have been happy....

This means that the McCanns are unhappy about a search that was made, it was too thorough, even though they are not experts on canine behaviour or the search methods that are normally applied.

Dog search at Murats nothing was found
Dog search at Renault something was found

Are they not meant to be searching for a missing child?

Which again brings us to as you say ....
Barnfish say's....

The only evidence that she is not there is because of the dog searches that the 'McCanns don't trust'
The only evidence that she might be there is because of this evidence by Birch 'something'.

Now look at this very carefully Barnfish, please don't start discussing Miss Marple etc... again.

This is from Martin Grimes webpage

''The following searches were conducted:
•Five apartments at a complex in Praia Da Luz.
•Mr. Murat's property at Pria Da Luz.Mr.
•McCann's Villa at Pria Da Luz ( Present occupancy).
•Articles of clothing from Mr. McCann's residence.
•Western beach Pria da Luz.
•Eastern Beach Pria Da Luz.
•10 Vehicles screened at Portimao.''
eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/rep...-grime-re-eddie.html

So why do they/you trust him at Murats but not at the Renault?

If they don't trust him at Murat's then they have no evidence against Birch's ground scans, and the need to dig.

In addition to the above, how do we know that the driveway was not dug after it was searched?
That would be a 'good place' to hide something, agreed?

Edit - And of course could explain how 'scents' and possible MMcC DNA was recovered from a car that was hired after she went missing.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
I cannot answer for the McCanns. They may be happy with evidence which is towards what they want and unhappy with evidence against what they want. Whether their want is to find Madeleine or not to find her remains as she was accidentally killed is another matter.

I trust the dogs and the handler at the apartment, the car and Murats.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Show me when the McCanns have had the opportunity to bury their daughter at the driveway.

Barnfish wrote:
I'm not saying it was them who buried her or if she's even there, only that It's a possibility that is not being followed up that she might be there and someone could have put her there, either before the McCanns hired the car but used the same car as coincidence or because they are involved somehow?

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Fine, dig it up.