NO JUSTICE ON THE JUSTICE FORUM - NOR WILL THERE EVER BE Part 5

coco wrote:

dont know why they bother about getting a bad reputation when thats allowed .

coco wrote:why is the hate blogger d arc getting to issue orders to people ? seems to be very full of her own importance , daft mare   

Pagani
Newbie

Re: Portuguese lawyer Marcos Aragão Correia

« Reply #113 on: Today at 06:19:20 PM »
Quote from: davel on Today at 06:03:20 PM
and who would you be ...satan by any chance?...you need your medication looked at..

medication?
you might want to check yours because i don't have none.
Satan, if I'm satan you should be scared...
fine...
Satan=me
dickhead w......., gerry, short cummings = YOU MR DRIVEL!!!!

coco wrote:Quote from: stephen25000 on Today at 07:24:25 PM
So are you a doctor or a bricklayer ?

Stuck Record making a fool of himself as usual   

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #543 on: Today at 08:17:42 PM »
Quote from: gilet on Today at 08:14:04 PM
An excellent question.

Why have those posts by Serendipity been removed from the forum by admin or mods?

Many contained no abuse or other reason which would normally be the motive for such removal. Some were simply informing us of aspects of the dog work.

So why has admin seen fit to remove them?

Was it that Serendipity asked for their removal? Was it that admin believes Serendipity said too much? Was it to protect Serendipity from the questioning about her claims that did ensue and would have continued to ensue?

Was it possibly to protect Martin Grime? smile

Can admin actually answer this question or will there simply be more deletions of posts to cover it all up again?

Personally, and this is based partly on the nonsensical nature of the comments made by Serendipity herself and partly on knowledge I have gleaned about this person from elsewhere, I think admin here have been taken for complete mugs over this issue. And a failure to answer the question posed by Benice above and re-iterated in this post will be further confirmation of that.  

Couldn't agree more...IF Grime has confided in serendipity and the posts made are Grime's genuine comments then Grime is very unprofessional and KNOWS the case against the mccanns is going nowhere near a court

Gilet:

Indeed, I agree with Davel about Grime. If he has been stupid enough to confide in this Serendipity woman, then he is completely unprofessional. But it also indicates that he must know for certain that what Redwood says on that video is true and that there isn't the slightest chance of any case ever going anywhere against the McCanns.

Thanks for the reminder that SY is NOT investigating the McCanns

stephen25000 on Today at 07:11:17 AM
I find it quite fascinating when gilet repeatedly posts on this issue, with to put it mildly an ultra-thin veneer of neutrality.

However, that neutrality is irrelevant and clearly doesn't exist, no matter the pretense.

It has already been established that the forensics were inconclusive.

The dogs made alerts, which posters from either side of the fence will disagree on.

The bottom line is, posters supporting the mccanns will attack the use of dogs and say they have no meaning, whilst those on the reverse will say they have significance, as dogs are very reliable in what they do. The same dogs having being used by the same handler in other cases.

Likewise, Martin Grime had no axe to grind, he was merely doing his job, and any other handler would also have been attacked by the mccanns supporters in the same way.

It has always been a SHAME they never attacked the parents for what they did in leaving their children in the first place, which is where the case starts with Madeleine's disappearance and the inexcusable leaving of leaving 3 children unprotected for extended periods of time, with infrequent and no independently corroborated checks. As s well known, children of that age are extremely vulnerable, and nothing said by the mccanns or those that back them, can change that.

Meanwhile there is nothing to prove an abduction took place, and certainly no forensics to back one up.

 Gilet:

I find your post desperately sad. Your whole approach seems to be "attack", expecting it of others and regretting that others don't attack the parents of a missing little girl and imagining that the posts of others are some form of attack when they are no such thing.

A little bit of my personal history regarding the case may enlighten you. Initially, when I first began to read about the case, I was extremely dubious about the role of the parents and even their friends who were in PDL with them. But even then I did not "attack" the parents. Why should I? I am not at war against them. I simply want to find the truth as to what happened. The best method of doing this is not to "attack" those who may be involved but to question as carefully and as widely as possible about the events. The idea of "attacking" suspects was prevalent in certain police forces in the past but in civilised nations such methods have been seen to be ineffective and downright dangerous. Clearly it is not to your liking that modern police and others who see that simple "attack" is ineffective prefer to use more effective methodologies.

I managed, eventually, to get to read the full PJ files which I noted bore absolutely no resemblance to the blazing headlines of the UK and PT media which had previously been my main source of information about the events. I noted also that the conclusions of the PJ files did not, in any way support the book written by Amaral which I read in its French and English translations. I considered all this in relation to my initial doubts about the integrity of the McCanns and decided that there was not sufficient evidence for me to consider them guilty of any crime. I did not rule out that in the future some such evidence might come to light but in 2008/2009 it certainly did not exist in the public domain.

Since then I have not seen any new evidence which has persuaded me of the guilt of the parents of any crime. And unlike certain people on this forum, I retain some trust in both the PJ and SY teams who have both indicated that they are not looking at the parents as suspects and this further reinforces my own reading of the evidence.

The reason you do not see me questioning the McCanns so much now is that personally I have already done that. I assure you that I have looked at the statements (yes there are inconsistencies but having taken the time to discuss this with serving police I realise that similar inconsistencies exist in every set of statements as people simply do not recall things in identical ways), I have looked at the dog alerts and realise that they do not indicate that Madeleine McCann is dead (yes they may alert to unexplained cadaver scent but that is not proof of anything) and I have taken note that every one of the most lurid stories which originally influenced me has been removed by the newspaper involved without any attempt to defend it in a court of law (which strongly suggests that they know there is nothing to support the headlines).

I don't take anything at all at face value. And that includes the alerts of the dogs.

You seem to take issue with me posing questions about the dogs and suggest that we should take them at face value as indicating a death in the apartment. Only last night I discussed that here at length with Pathfinder and was not altogether surprised to find that he or she could not provide any evidence to support that an alert to cadaver scent in the apartment must have related to the presence of an actual cadaver in that apartment. There is nothing to show that the presence of such cadaver scent (if such a scent ever was present and even Grime cannot do more than tell us the alerts are suggestive not definitive indicators of that) could not have been due to such scent having been introduced into the apartment by some other means (on clothing, object etc.).

Thankfully, I am aware that police do not have your attitude to things these days. They question everything relating to a case, they know that should they ever bring a case to court the lawyers will also question every detail of the work done. They do not simply say that people had no motive to do something wrong therefore their actions need not be questioned. They know that everybody has the capacity to make mistakes.

And most importantly they do not, as your post shows you shamefully want people to, "attack" people. They investigate and look for the truth. I try to emulate those methods.

As for your final comment please take that to the relevant thread. This topic is about the reliability of the dogs.

Quote from: gilet on Today at 06:14:19 PM
People can read your post for themselves.

It is a strong theme in the post I refer to that you believe it is a shame that people are not, as you put it ATTACKING the McCanns.

Just because others are not prepared to join with you in such attacks does not mean that others are not searching for the truth.

To find the truth you must be open to all possibilities.

Clearly from your final comments above you have closed your mind to other possibilities and have decided on the guilt of the parents even though absolutely no proof exists of any such guilt.

I am afraid that you will never persuade me to close my mind in the way you have done and to behave effectively like a mini lynch-mob as you are doing; haranguing the parents of a missing child as if they are guilty of a crime when no evidence of any such guilt exists.

Shame on you.

Quote from: stephen25000 on Today at 07:23:12 PM
On the contrary, it is you who has a closed mind.

Your mindset is blatantly obvious and designed to deceive.

It is not lynch mob mentality to state the obvious................

The three children should never have been left in an unlocked apartment, whilst their parents placed their socializing first and foremost.

It is you who need to GET REAL and place the blame for Madeleine's disappearance where it lasts, at the hands of her parents and not some made up abductor(s), for which there is no proof, let alone forensic evidence.

SHAME ON YOU

Gilet:

I will let the readers look back at your posts and see who is open-minded or not. Your previous post made it very clear that you have already declared the McCanns guilty in relation to the cadaver dog alerts. No more need be said other than that there is no evidence of any crime by the McCanns. Your obsession flies in the face of the Official Portuguese Archival Report.

Now back to the topic at hand.

Re: Hello Numptiz. Everyboddy iz laughin at youz.
PostPosted by urcrazy » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:20 pm

I've just been reading Denise Thomson aka Serendippy aka SynoNumpty on the inaptly-named 'justice forum', on Sykes' place.

And I have to say that her raving, threatening, pompous, ridiculous posturings are what happens when you give someone with a personality disorder free reign and an 'important' label.

She has gone over the top and then charged down the other side with bayonet fixed.