Maddy McCann

[Jhony5]

I never think it's fun to think about dead children, no matter what or who the cause

Too much entertainment in the news today. People oft times forget that we're talking about a little girl and they delve deep into the soap opera aspects and inherent entertainment value of believing the parents were the killers.

 

No, most crimes of harm to children involve a close family member or close friend of the family. In this case, only the parents meet that description due to them being in another country at the time.

I think everybody knows that. This is not exactly a stunning revelation of forensic demographics.

 

There is a twist to this statistic, however. Let's say 85% of all murdered children involve a family member. That 85% is, of course, chopped off of a 100% block of solved cases. The twist is where stranger abductions come into play. The highest percentage of unsolved child murders/missing children are perpetrated by strangers, or non-family members.

 

The police, naturally, want it to be a family member. If this is true, than they have a list to work their way down. Once that list is finished, then they're f cked.

 

The longer this case goes unsolved, the more indicative it is of the parents innocence. Given the strict timeline involved, the parents would have to be either very very lucky, or possess a murderous savvy the likes of which Ted Bundy would be jealous.

 

The cadaver dogs are like a pregnancy test, you are either pregnant or not, in this case, there either was a human corpse in the apartment and vehicle or not, the dogs hit on a dead body, that is all there is to say.

Are you actually debating this and have no real knowledge other than what you read on the cover of the Enquirer while you wait to check out at the grocery?

 

Seriously, the "cadaver dogs" bit was a line of sh t. How can you not see this? This is a Moroccan resort town who's economy relies heavily on tourist dollars. They cannot have people thinking that a child abductor is at play on their field. Sorry to say it, but politics have taken precedent over good police work here.

 

From the UK media;

Questions over Maddy McCann 'blood traces' - Telegraph

Traces on the floor and windowsill of the apartment are said to have been identified as Madeleine's, though British forensic experts have cast doubt on their reliability as samples were said to have been largely wiped away with cleaning fluid. They also point out that the blood could be from an innocent cut or graze.

 

 

It is unclear whether the DNA samples in the Renault Scenic, also said to be blood, were in the pit, or, as has now been suggested, under the carpet in the boot. One Portuguese newspaper said police had found "biological fluids" with an 80 per cent match to Madeleine's DNA under the carpet.

 

The police appear convinced that Madeleine's body was moved in the car, hired 25 days after her disappearance. It is not clear whether the samples were flecks of dried blood, which could have been transferred there from her clothes or toys, or a larger quantity caused by direct bleeding.

 

There has been no confirmation that the samples are blood. Traces of skin or hair would be almost meaningless, as they could have rubbed off Madeleine's clothes or her Cuddle Cat toy when the family were moving apartments.

 

So, as I have been adamantly asserting, the "biological evidence" in the apartment is faulty and most likely just trace evidence that Maddy was there. Which we already know.

 

Now the bit about the cadaver dogs;

The police are also relying on the reaction of "cadaver dogs" trained to react to the scent of a corpse. One is said to have "smelled death" in the hire car and the apartment. Kate McCann's work as a doctor, in which she handles corpses, could mean she had slight traces of such odors on her clothing.

Now if the dogs even did actually hit, which I have my doubts, then there is still a plausible and wholeheartedly logical explanation for this. The dogs smelled death on a woman that works daily with corpses. How quaint!

 

They admit they wanted to go out with friends without their children, this is not in dispute. Why did they "not" get the in-house baby sitting service as you say they could have?

Thats simple. They obviously didn't regard leaving their kids across the hall with any more worry than they would to do this at home. This is not a monstrous act. It is the act of complacent and irresponsible parents. If they had regarded this as an obstacle (The only reason why they would use strong amounts of sedatives) than why wouldn't they just pick up the phone and call the in-house babysitter? Am I making sense yet?

 

Why did they feel so safe?

 

Is there a reason they knew that there was no way their tiny children could have gotten into mischief without supervision? Maybe because the children were drugged?

No. They felt safe due to an irresponsible amount of complacency. The knowledge that their children, any children this age, would be fast asleep and would sleep through a train wreck. I know, thats stupid. But people are stupid more than they are not. Just because you nor I would do this, hardly signifies that no one would do this.

 

Yes, I know there is not facts to prove this but as a parent I cannot accept that any parent would leave their kids unattended in this kind of scenario without some good reason to believe the kids could not get into trouble while out of sight and hearing of the parents in a strange Country.

A hair follicle test performed on the other two children, searching for trace amounts of whatever sedatives that these doctors had access too, could have cleared up this baseless theory. To mention such things without proof is akin to injecting theories of alien abduction into the matter.

 

Why a man, why not a woman?

What? I thought you liked statistical averages? Now you're against such notions?

 

Why a pedafile, why not a slave trading ring that was looking for children?

Because a lone pedophile is an unknowable, unseen entity. The existence of a sex/slave trade in these parts has nary a whisper attached. Such things leave resonant traces. Word spreads and cases support such activity. Nothing to this angle exists. Therefor it is logical to assume that the perpetrator is a pedophillac male, 35 years of age, acting alone.

 

Again, you like statistical averages. I got plenty to fire back at 'cha.

 

The what ifs can go on forever but there is not one shred of evidence showing anyone else was involved in this case.

More paramount is the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to indicate the parents did it. Which is an abominable oversight.

 

All the police have been able to prove concerning the parents, is that Maddy was at some point in the apartment and around here parents. Both of which we already know.

 

For Maddy's DNA to get in that car, hired after she went missing, is not even worthy of note. I find my daughters hair entangled in my own, days after dropping her off to her mother.

 

Having proof they were involved based on what can pass in a court of law is completely different than what we need to know these parents are most likely involved in reality.

There is no reason or evidence pointing toward the parents. All we have here is a speculative theory that lacks corroboration on any level.

[timesjoke]

Too much entertainment in the news today. People oft times forget that we're talking about a little girl and they delve deep into the soap opera aspects and inherent entertainment value of believing the parents were the killers.

 

And the most likely percentage of being guilty, don't forget that little tidbit.

 

 

I think everybody knows that. This is not exactly a stunning revelation of forensic demographics.

 

And yet you want the parents to be completely ignored as suspects even though they have the highest degree of possible guilt.

 

 

There is a twist to this statistic, however. Let's say 85% of all murdered children involve a family member. That 85% is, of course, chopped off of a 100% block of solved cases. The twist is where stranger abductions come into play. The highest percentage of unsolved child murders/missing children are perpetrated by strangers, or non-family members.

 

Being as they were never solved, how would you know that?

 

Obviously you are making that up, I can just as easily say that all unsolved abductions and murders of children are done by the parents and what would that mean?

 

Nothing, just like the crap you just said.

 

Most crime against children of this sort is done by relatives and close friends, these parents are the only ones that match the statistics, clearly until a good reason comes up to no longer consider them, they should remain as the prime suspects.

 

 

The police, naturally, want it to be a family member. If this is true, than they have a list to work their way down. Once that list is finished, then they're f cked.

 

How do you know what the police "want" you a mind reader now?

 

Again, more made up crap to try and support an unlikely scenario of the parents not being involved in some way.

 

 

The longer this case goes unsolved, the more indicative it is of the parents innocence. Given the strict timeline involved, the parents would have to be either very very lucky, or possess a murderous savvy the likes of which Ted Bundy would be jealous.

 

Actually, it is the opposite, the longer it remains unsolved, the greater the chance it was the parents are guilty. A stranger must act quickly, he must take chances and cannot prepare for every possibility so there is almost always a mistake somewhere, as time goes by and everything is more closely looked at, it shows that great care and time went into making that body dissapear, that means only the parents had the ability to put so much detail into the crime.

 

 

Are you actually debating this and have no real knowledge other than what you read on the cover of the Enquirer while you wait to check out at the grocery?

 

No, I am very well educated in the situation and have a much greater understanding of investigations then you do being as I have done a few.

 

 

Seriously, the "cadaver dogs" bit was a line of sh t. How can you not see this? This is a Moroccan resort town who's economy relies heavily on tourist dollars. They cannot have people thinking that a child abductor is at play on their field. Sorry to say it, but politics have taken precedent over good police work here.

 

Cadavar dogs don't know anything about politics, they only do what they are trained to do. They are trained to detect dead bodies, that is what they did, what people did with that information after the fact has nothing to do with the validity of the hits.

 

 

So, as I have been adamantly asserting, the "biological evidence" in the apartment is faulty and most likely just trace evidence that Maddy was there. Which we already know.

 

We don;t know that because the details of what was found was not released, but they did say fluids in one report, at least a small about of fluid in the vehicle, that is not easily written off.

 

 

Now the bit about the cadaver dogs;

Now if the dogs even did actually hit, which I have my doubts, then there is still a plausible and wholeheartedly logical explanation for this. The dogs smelled death on a woman that works daily with corpses. How quaint!

 

The scent could not be transmitted in that way unless she had handled "fresh" dead bodies and never washed her hands before touching the floor of both the room and the vehicle, that is not plausable.

 

 

Thats simple. They obviously didn't regard leaving their kids across the hall with any more worry than they would to do this at home. This is not a monstrous act. It is the act of complacent and irresponsible parents. If they had regarded this as an obstacle (The only reason why they would use strong amounts of sedatives) than why wouldn't they just pick up the phone and call the in-house babysitter? Am I making sense yet?

 

Unless the drug use was the most common way they used, people tend to creat habbits and if they used the drug method at home, they would use it while away from home as well. Clearly they "could" have used the bebysitter if they wanted to, it was their choice, but they refused to get a sitter, very troubling fact to me.

 

 

No. They felt safe due to an irresponsible amount of complacency. The knowledge that their children, any children this age, would be fast asleep and would sleep through a train wreck. I know, thats stupid. But people are stupid more than they are not. Just because you nor I would do this, hardly signifies that no one would do this.

 

Again, you were not there and cannot read their minds so where we must make an "assumption" we should stay in the most reasonable and common assumptions in cases like these. A reasonable parent would never leave their tiny children unattended without knowing for sure they would not get into mischief. Being as they refused to get a sitter, there must have been another reason they were so sure the kids were not going to get into anything.

 

 

A hair follicle test performed on the other two children, searching for trace amounts of whatever sedatives that these doctors had access too, could have cleared up this baseless theory. To mention such things without proof is akin to injecting theories of alien abduction into the matter.

 

It was requested and denied, another thing that draws suspicion.

 

 

What? I thought you liked statistical averages? Now you're against such notions?

 

Because a lone pedophile is an unknowable, unseen entity. The existence of a sex/slave trade in these parts has nary a whisper attached. Such things leave resonant traces. Word spreads and cases support such activity. Nothing to this angle exists. Therefor it is logical to assume that the perpetrator is a pedophillac male, 35 years of age, acting alone.

 

Again, you like statistical averages. I got plenty to fire back at 'cha.

 

And is my reason for bring it up.

 

You clearly feel it reasonable to talk of averages to "assume" a male molester was involved but they account for a very tiny number of attacks on children in the world and is stistically very doubtful in a situation like this.

 

Only the parents had provable access, a possible good motive, and the knowledge to pull this off in such a seemless and perfect way.

 

 

More paramount is the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to indicate the parents did it. Which is an abominable oversight.

 

Nope, there is lots of evidence. They were the only ones with access to the children, they had plenty of time and knowledge to pull off this perfect crime, they have very unbelievable stories about why they refused to get a sitter and have everything to lose in life if guilty.

 

Dead body hits in the appartment and vehicle as well as DNA evidence in that vehicle.

 

The only evidence in the case directly points at the parents, not one shred of evidence points to anyone else.

 

 

All the police have been able to prove concerning the parents, is that Maddy was at some point in the apartment and around here parents. Both of which we already know.

 

So clearly they were the only ones proven to have access.

 

For Maddy's DNA to get in that car, hired after she went missing, is not even worthy of note. I find my daughters hair entangled in my own, days after dropping her off to her mother.

 

But she was never in the car, at least not alive anyway.

 

 

There is no reason or evidence pointing toward the parents. All we have here is a speculative theory that lacks corroboration on any level.

 

What are you talking about, all of the evidence directly points at the parents.

 

There may not be a lot of evidence, but what they have is against the parents. There is not one thing that proves anyone else was involved, that is where the lack of evidence falls to further show the parents are the only ones who could have done it.

 

So far, but I am hoping new information does come along to prove it otherwise.

 

You act like people want it to be the parents but most of us dred any story of a parent hurting their child. It pisses us off and makes us wonder how a parent could do something like this. It is much easier to accept actions like this from a stranger, without an emotional bond to the child then a parent who by every right should never be able to do it.

 

 

But reality tells us that they are the most likely responsible people, no matter how much we may want it to be otherwise.

[Jhony5]

Being as they were never solved, how would you know that?

 

Obviously you are making that up, I can just as easily say that all unsolved abductions and murders of children are done by the parents and what would that mean?

Any cop will tell you. Stranger abductions are by far the hardest to solve. Logical deduction must mean that the highest percentage of unsolved abduction cases involve a stranger. This is why the highest percentage of solved cases involve family or friends. Because they are on a list. Summarily checked off. Strangers are not going to appear on this list.

 

Police derive there statistics for stranger abductions through an elementary process known as the process of elimination. If they check off everyone on the list, than it is probable that it was a stranger that was responsible.

 

If a child is abducted or killed and the case is never solved or a family member or friend is never named as a suspect, then it is logical to presume the abductor was a stranger or slight acquaintance.

 

And yet you want the parents to be completely ignored as suspects even though they have the highest degree of possible guilt.

No, I don't want them ignored. What I don't want is for a stranger to be ignored. Tunnel-vision investigations are flawed from the start.

 

Most crime against children of this sort is done by relatives and close friends

Agreed. But this can only be shown in solved cases. Which are relatively easy in comparison to solving cases that involve a stranger.

 

these parents are the only ones that match the statistics, clearly until a good reason comes up to no longer consider them, they should remain as the prime suspects.

They only match a generic statistic. They do not match statistically in respect to; They aren't divorced. They aren't criminals. They don't use drugs. They aren't mentally unstable. They aren't suffering from a mental illness/depression. They have no life insurance policies for Maddy. They have no overt motive.

 

How do you know what the police "want" you a mind reader now?

 

Again, more made up crap to try and support an unlikely scenario of the parents not being involved in some way.

First of all, a stranger abduction is hardily "unlikely". Statistically less then what we see with family members being involved. But hardly an unlikely scenario.

 

Actually, it is the opposite, the longer it remains unsolved, the greater the chance it was the parents are guilty. A stranger must act quickly, he must take chances and cannot prepare for every possibility so there is almost always a mistake somewhere, as time goes by and everything is more closely looked at, it shows that great care and time went into making that body disappear, that means only the parents had the ability to put so much detail into the crime.

Whomever committed this crime did it on impulse. If the parents planned for this and used malice aforethought to commit this crime against their daughter, it would go against your unfounded scenario that they accidentally over dosed their child on a sedative. Which would require an impulsive cover-up. An impulsive crime will most often have cracks and mistakes. Being that the parents are under a fully focused microscope, any mistake would have manifested itself. So far, notta.

 

So what was it Mr scenario crafter? An impulsive hasty cover-up due to an overdose? Or a well planned murder with no apparent motivation?

 

No, I am very well educated in the situation and have a much greater understanding of investigations then you do being as I have done a few.

Ya. And did I tell you I am a black belt karate instructor when I'm not f cking teenage cheerleaders. C'mon man. So far you present yourself as a jack of all trades. I'm not saying you're a liar. I'm saying you are full of sh t. Wait........ya I'm saying your a liar.

 

Cadaver dogs don't know anything about politics, they only do what they are trained to do.

Did these dogs give a press conference that I am not aware of? Because I claim the police are liars. They are known liars. Lying to suspects in a standard method of operation. Even lying to the media is proper when it comes to a murder investigation. Being that you are a seasoned investigator, than you probably already know this.

 

The scent could not be transmitted in that way unless she had handled "fresh" dead bodies and never washed her hands before touching the floor of both the room and the vehicle, that is not plausible.

Thats bullsh t. Cadaver dogs hit on the odor of rotting human flesh. There is no distinguishing between the freshness of said rotting flesh. As rotting flesh is inherently not fresh.

 

We don;t know that because the details of what was found was not released, but they did say fluids in one report, at least a small about of fluid in the vehicle, that is not easily written off.

If they did have any evidence, they would secure an indictment. On top of that, as a few of the links I provided pointed out, this was most likely a pre-interrogation mind f ck.

 

It was requested and denied, another thing that draws suspicion.

Your source for this? Because it is my understanding that they could secure a warrant for the acquisition of DNA for a profile.

 

You clearly feel it reasonable to talk of averages to "assume" a male molester was involved but they account for a very tiny number of attacks on children in the world and is statistically very doubtful in a situation like this.

I am arguing for a stranger abduction. If I am correct and it was a stranger, than the most likely culprit fits my profile. As this matches the FBI's statistics for stranger abductions and the motive for such being sex, 49% of the time. The rest is comprised of people attempting to keep the child for their own and a mixture of "other". 86% is a male between 20-39, fitting my profile rather well.

 

 

Child Abduction, analysis of this crime and major cases - The Crime library

Stranger abduction events are usually committed for sexual purposes (49%) and in over 40% of the cases, the victim was murdered. That is in addition to the 4%, like Etan Patz in New York City, that have never been found.

 

So clearly they were the only ones proven to have access.

I can get into your house, I guarantee, in less than 3 minutes. Right through your front door. Rudimentary knowledge of how to re-key a lock, how to mark a blank key, how to maneuver the internal tumblers and/or a credit card and I'm in there snatchin your child while you sleep.

 

Nope, there is lots of evidence. They were the only ones with access to the children, they had plenty of time and knowledge to pull off this perfect crime, they have very unbelievable stories about why they refused to get a sitter and have everything to lose in life if guilty.

 

Dead body hits in the apartment and vehicle as well as DNA evidence in that vehicle.

 

The only evidence in the case directly points at the parents, not one shred of evidence points to anyone else.

If this was indeed the case, then th DA would have sufficient cause to push for an indictment and press charges with a hearty stash of circumstantial evidence.

 

 

What are you talking about, all of the evidence directly points at the parents.

Lies do not count as evidence on the foot of a faulty investigation. The only evidence they say they have has been ardently disputed by many people that it even exists or that it has any pertinence to indicate a murder took place.

[timesjoke]

Any cop will tell you. Stranger abductions are by far the hardest to solve. Logical deduction must mean that the highest percentage of unsolved abduction cases involve a stranger. This is why the highest percentage of solved cases involve family or friends. Because they are on a list. Summarily checked off. Strangers are not going to appear on this list.

 

It is not logical to "assume" only strangers could make successful crimes like these. It is logical that being as most people who get busted doing these crimes are related to the victims, then that trend should follow into crimes unsolved.

 

 

If a child is abducted or killed and the case is never solved or a family member or friend is never named as a suspect, then it is logical to presume the abductor was a stranger or slight acquaintance.

 

What you are talking about is an assumption, without the case being sloved, we do not know the relationships but we do know with all crimes that the most successful criminals are those that plan more, how has more time to plan something like this other then the close friends/relatives?

 

 

No, I don't want them ignored. What I don't want is for a stranger to be ignored. Tunnel-vision investigations are flawed from the start.

 

My point was that being as most crimes involving children are committed by family and close friends, and the parents are the only ones who fit that description, obviously it is reasonable to focus 90% of the attention to that direction. Time spent looking at lower priority possibilities is warrented, but not a main concern in cases like this where so often strangers have nothing to do with them.

 

 

Agreed. But this can only be shown in solved cases. Which are relatively easy in comparison to solving cases that involve a stranger.

 

I still do not agree witht he stranger thing, I am sorry but it is hard enough to do a crime like this but the stress and fear involved with someone unfamilure with times, areas, schedules, room layouts, and the unforseen make it very difficult for a complete stranger to pull off something like this without leaving any evidence at all of their being there.

 

 

They only match a generic statistic. They do not match statistically in respect to; They aren't divorced. They aren't criminals. They don't use drugs. They aren't mentally unstable. They aren't suffering from a mental illness/depression. They have no life insurance policies for Maddy. They have no overt motive.

 

You cannot prove any of that, most studies show that over 80% of women deal with severe depression after pregnancy, humans are a mess and still most of the harm done to children are from those that they trust, I am sorry but that can only be the parents in this case.

 

 

First of all, a stranger abduction is hardily "unlikely". Statistically less then what we see with family members being involved. But hardly an unlikely scenario.

 

Unlikely is when it is a very low chance compared to the average, in this case the average is massivley larger then any other percentage, so yes, it is unlikely that a stranger was involved.

 

 

Whomever committed this crime did it on impulse. If the parents planned for this and used malice aforethought to commit this crime against their daughter, it would go against your unfounded scenario that they accidentally over dosed their child on a sedative. Which would require an impulsive cover-up. An impulsive crime will most often have cracks and mistakes. Being that the parents are under a fully focused microscope, any mistake would have manifested itself. So far, notta.

 

So if what you say is true, then a stranger was acting on impulse too and also faced with the fact that they must have made a mistake.

 

What makes these people so different then the normal parents who are faced with this kind of thing is they are both highly educated doctors where most homes may only have one professional. There is no weak link to crack, they are too smart for the police in this case.

 

My beliefe that an overdose was possible does not remove their critical thinking abilities doctors are trained to have. They could have killed their child by accidental overdose and still be capable of proper planning and execution to cover it up.

 

 

Ya. And did I tell you I am a black belt karate instructor when I'm not f cking teenage cheerleaders. C'mon man. So far you present yourself as a jack of all trades. I'm not saying you're a liar. I'm saying you are full of sh t. Wait........ya I'm saying your a liar.

 

So anyone with an experience greater then your own in certain areas must be a lier if they do not agree with you?

 

There go the personal attacks again, what is it with those that are so unsure of themselves that they must strike out at those who do not agree with them?

 

I am well trained in many areas of law enforcement and even certified to teach things like defensive tactics and weapons but I only helped in a few investigations being as it was not very exciting to me, you can believe me or not but your belief does not change my experience my friend.

 

 

Did these dogs give a press conference that I am not aware of? Because I claim the police are liars. They are known liars. Lying to suspects in a standard method of operation. Even lying to the media is proper when it comes to a murder investigation. Being that you are a seasoned investigator, than you probably already know this.

 

So you feel it is reasonable to call all these people liers and you know nothing about any of them but you also feel it is reasonable to ignore the most likely suspects in cases like this in favor of looking for a stranger when there is no evidence of a stranger.

 

Interesting.

 

 

Thats bullsh t. Cadaver dogs hit on the odor of rotting human flesh. There is no distinguishing between the freshness of said rotting flesh. As rotting flesh is inherently not fresh.

 

But you also cannot transfur these smells indefinately, they must be on you, not just around you to transfer. By the way, you do not the doctors wear gloves and scrubbs when handling dead bodies right?

 

Kinda difficult for the dogs to respond to something still sitting on the items in the trash thousands of miles away, not on her body.

 

 

If they did have any evidence, they would secure an indictment. On top of that, as a few of the links I provided pointed out, this was most likely a pre-interrogation mind f ck.

 

An indictment does not mean guilt just like being aquitted for murder does not make you innocent in reality. O.J. Simpson killed two people reguardless of the evidence or how it was presented.

 

 

Your source for this? Because it is my understanding that they could secure a warrant for the acquisition of DNA for a profile.

 

DNA samples are taken many ways, most often by swabbing the inside cheek, not gathering hair that can be tested for possible drug induced sleep so parents can go out.

 

 

I am arguing for a stranger abduction. If I am correct and it was a stranger, than the most likely culprit fits my profile. As this matches the FBI's statistics for stranger abductions and the motive for such being sex, 49% of the time. The rest is comprised of people attempting to keep the child for their own and a mixture of "other". 86% is a male between 20-39, fitting my profile rather well.

 

And yet you completely ignore the statistics of parents or close relatives/friends being responsible for over 90% of all crimes against children, imagine that.

 

 

I can get into your house, I guarantee, in less than 3 minutes. Right through your front door. Rudimentary knowledge of how to re-key a lock, how to mark a blank key, how to maneuver the internal tumblers and/or a credit card and I'm in there snatchin your child while you sleep.

 

Not my house, I have locks that cannot be "bumped" and my dogs will eat you before you ever get within reach of my door, but I see your point, the only thing you are forgetting is you will leave some evidence of your being there. You cannot enter a home and snatch kids without leaving some trace of your being there, but somehow the only evidence of people being there was the parents.

 

 

If this was indeed the case, then th DA would have sufficient cause to push for an indictment and press charges with a hearty stash of circumstantial evidence.

 

I am not sure of that judicial system, but in America, any prosecuter would be very scared of trying a case on only circumstancial evidence, and this being so pushed by the press would make it even more difficult.

 

No, unless better evidence comes up, they will not be tried.

 

Lies do not count as evidence on the foot of a faulty investigation. The only evidence they say they have has been ardently disputed by many people that it even exists or that it has any pertinence to indicate a murder took place.

 

You are right, lies are not evidence, but neither is nothing, and nothing is exactly what points to a stranger, an absence of evidence is not evidence as you keep trying to say.

 

While there is not much, there is a small amount pointing tword the parents and that combined with most children being harmed by someone close to them makes them the prime suspect until some evidence comes along to show someone else did it, but even without that, they are still guilty of child endangerment, that is a slam dunk, we have all the proof we need to clearly show that these parents should not have put these kids into harms way.

[snafu]

What would the motive be for a stranger? And why would they only take Maddy and not any of the other kids? And obviously the child is missing so the dogs should hit on something. Right? Also the dogs found the scent in the trunk of the car. Not inside the car. How many of you put your kids in the trunk? Jhony how would your daughters scent and fluids end up in a rental cars trunk?

 

This all reminds me of the JonBenet Ramsey case. I think the parents had something to do with that one too.

[hugo]

How many of you put your kids in the trunk?

 

I used to make my kid ride in the trunk. Of course, I've always been an asshole.

[atlantic]

I heard recently on CNN that they are close to clearning the parents, but nothing since.

[hugo]

I heard recently on CNN that they are close to clearning the parents, but nothing since.

 

I distrust the Communist News Network.

[atlantic]

I distrust the Communist News Network.

It was actually Fox news, sorry bout the mix-up.

[hugo]

Newest evidence seems to point to the direction that Maddy's parents grilled and ate her.

[Jhony5]

Newest evidence seems to point to the direction that Maddy's parents grilled and ate her.

 

Yep, I was shocked to see that. Apparently they found a book titled "101 ways to cook your child" in the McCanns kitchen.

[hugo]

Yep, I was shocked to see that. Apparently they found a book titled "101 ways to cook your child" in the McCanns kitchen.

 

It is sad that such a book even exists.

[ImWithStupid]

Yep, I was shocked to see that. Apparently they found a book titled "101 ways to cook your child" in the McCanns kitchen.

 

That makes me furious. My publisher told me that nobody bought any copies of that and they didn't need to pay me any royalties.

[Jhony5]

That makes me furious. My publisher told me that nobody bought any copies of that and they didn't need to pay me any royalties.

 

:This just in:

 

After further investigation; The forensics lab inspected the "cook book" and upon closer inspection they learned that the cover of the book had beef stew spilled on it several years ago. Once the dried beef stew was cleaned off it was discovered that the title of the book actually reads as "101 ways to cook for your child".

 

The McCanns slip away again. Drat!

[ImWithStupid]

:This just in:

 

After further investigation; The forensics lab inspected the "cook book" and upon closer inspection they learned that the cover of the book had beef stew spilled on it several years ago. Once the dried beef stew was cleaned off it was discovered that the title of the book actually reads as "101 ways to cook for your child".

 

The McCanns slip away again. Drat!

 

OK, I guess it wasn't my book, anyway. My publisher is off the hook. FOR NOW!

[snafu]

LOl Alfred Hitch ?s the friendly alien cookbook ?How to serve man".

[snafu]

Oh that?s sad when your name gets censored. Ya know my dads name is Dick but he?s not one.

[ImWithStupid]

Ya know my dads name is Dick but he?s not one.

 

That's your opinion.

[ImWithStupid]

To get back on track. I'm starting to think this case may end up like the Jon Benet Ramsey case, and nobody will ever be held accountable. That case was a classic example of inept police work, mostly because the Boulder police were too proud to ask for assistance. It's sad when pride interferes with justice.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Didn't the person that killed Jon Benet just get caught.

[ImWithStupid]

Didn't the person that killed Jon Benet just get caught.

 

If you are talking about John Mark Karr, the guy arrested in Thailand, his DNA didn't match the DNA found on her body, and wasn't charged.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Oh... I just heard vague things about him confessing or something... Didn't pay much attention to it at all. Sorry for the interruption, carry on.

[Old Salt]

Didn't the person that killed Jon Benet just get caught.

Not that I know of. There was a pedophile who claimed to be the one. He was in jail in Thailand when he made the claim. When he was extradited to the US he changed his story - it was proved he wasn't anywhere near Jon Bonet. But that was quite a while ago.

[Old Salt]

:oThat's what I get for posting before I read the whole thread. IWS is right.:o

[timesjoke]

Yep, I was shocked to see that. Apparently they found a book titled "101 ways to cook your child" in the McCanns kitchen.

 

 

It is sad a serious topic like this can get this kind of dark humor.

 

I was seriously dissapointed to see it take this turn.