The police in Galveston, Texas have already they have ruled out Madeleine McCann as the identity of Baby Grace.

I see our Tony Bennett and Andrew have been quoted in Transfattyacid!
Congrats

http://trannyfattyacid.blogspot.com/

The press published there was dna evidence in the car that could only have come from a corpse, is this a fact or speculation and is it definatly Maddies dna?

I know one of the dogs got excited around the car, but which dog was it? One is trained to detect corpse and blood and the other I believe only traces corpse scent?

Anyone know the answers?

Are the UK TV stations afraid to show it?

November 12th, 2007 at 2:41 am

Thanks for the links, I gave uplast night as I had trouble posting.

Before I attempt to respond your latest incontinent tirade, other posters should read this little gem from your following post:

407 Hideki Says:

And it is for this reason I have NO tolerance for anyone supporting these detestable people, or for anyone who does not push for prosecution of child neglect.

So, as we discussed a couple of days ago YOUR agenda here is charging people with child neglect. You have not the slightest interest, so far as I can ascertain, in discovering what happened to Madeleine and pursuing those responsible to the maximum extent of the law. And no, I don’t give a damn that you think that reads like a ‘Team McCann’ statement.

As I also explained to you a of couple of days ago I have a difference of ‘opinion’ to you and several other posters here. That’s my prerogative. I do not believe that a third party child neglect charge brought at this time will best serve the investigation. You, in particular, are so myopic in your views and have such a lust for blood that you appear incapable of understanding that this is a public forum where people express their opinions and the chances of everyone always agreeing with you are pretty slim. Just because someone holds a different opinion to you it doesn’t necessarily make them something akin to the devil incarnate or fully paid up member of Team McCann, as you alleged a couple of days back.

Turning to your post, it amply demonstrates that you are both incapable of following a fairly simple observation and separating your ‘agenda’ from your thought processes.

Hideki - POST EXTRACT

“I think the ones with absolutely no involvement in whatever crimes may have been committed may now be extremely worried that they are about to get embroiled in
something far larger than a ‘little white lie’ about how often they/others checked their children, in my opinion.”

I see you have not grown tired of your “argumentation” that child neglect is not very serious, should not be prosecuted, etc. For your information, it is a serious crime that can bring a sentence of several years. Lying in order to cover up such a crime is NOT “a little white lie”. Frankly, I’m astounded that you would think so and publicly state such an opinion.

COMMENT

Please show me anywhere where I have specifically stated that child neglect is not a serious issue/crime?

You are missing the point of my original comment. Assuming that all the members of the Tapas 9 are NOT in fact axe wielding murders, or however you might like to describe them, there must be you would think a few of them who may not have had the slightest clue as to what actually happened on the evening of May 3rd? They may well have become suspicious AFTER the event, but by that time they had been ‘tricked’ into giving corroborating witness statements by others in the group who really did have something very serious they needed to hide, in my opinion.

Hideki - POST EXTRACT

Moreover, even if a Tapas couple did not know (to be hypothetical) that Madeleine was killed, if by lying about their own crime (child neglect) they interfere with the course of justice, then they ARE guilty of obstructing justice. It would further aggravate their guilt if they knowingly used their lies to cover up the killing (hiding of corpse, etc), but EVEN WITHOUT A KILLING, these people KNEW PERFECTLY WELL that a child disappeared, and that their lies would impact the investigation.

COMMENT

You are mixing up unrelated issues and attempting to link them in an illogical manner to justify your desire to sue everyone re child neglect.

Your first sentence is correct, and is in fact a more succinct summation of the point that I was trying to make. If these people really didn’t know anything about what had happened to Madeleine at the time the events originally occurred then they are potentially a ‘weak link’ in the alleged ‘pact of silence’. i.e. It’s bad enough that they could be charged with child neglect but now they are also potentially in line for all manner of other charges relating to obstructing justice. These people, if indeed they exist, may possibly be willing to change their witness statements.

You can’t then link that statement to them deliberately lying in full knowledge of what may have happened to Madeleine. If they did this, then they are plan simple accessories and if proven should be charged as such. These people I would argue are less likely to substantially alter their witness statements.

Hideki - POST EXTRACT

I’m really amazed at how craftily and methodically you look for ways to paint the Tapas9 as “innocent” if they were not conspirators in the killing or corpse-hiding. Unfortunately for the Tapas9, their lies and lack of cooperation constitutes a serious obstruction of justice, in addition to the child neglect. No way to get around that — and likely this is what has provided the pressure to induce belated cooperation.

COMMENT

And I’m amazed at your inability to understand that there may have been people there that night who didn’t have the slightest clue as to the real events that someone(s) may have been attempting to conceal. If they were all complicit in knowingly concealing dreadful acts then so far as I’m concerned they can all go rot somewhere unpleasant for as long as the law will allow.

If however, there are even two people who didn’t know the real reason why it was so important to fabricate a timeline that allegedly showed the children being checked ‘often’, then the investigators should explore every avenue to separate them from the rest of the group. Once the first cracks appear, the façade would hopefully crumble pretty quickly.

If in the fullness of time, whatever that means, it looks like the Madeleine case will go cold and be ‘shelved’, then I think that is the time to pursue the Tapas 9 with every conceivable charge possible, including child neglect. That’s just my opinion, I make no apologies that it may not concur with yours.

If you read my earlier post (on another thread) you know that I agree with your analysis. I do not consider that the McCanns are religious at all, but that they are USING religion just like they would USE their children (dead or alive) , would USE the media, would USE public sympathy, etc.

Focusing on their quasi-religious sub-text allows them to lie “sincerely” and without feeling guilty about it. (Amazingly, it does not seem to help them sound sincere.) Another point is that when she is finally cornered, and Kate confesses, she can make public these coded messages as evidence that she was (albeit secretly) remorseful. Similarly, they could be used as evidence that she was mentally ill and in some kind of intense denial state.

Clarence Mitchell runs parallel to the McCanns, being another “pragmatic” person who does not need to dally with useless concepts like “truth” and “lies”. His job is to manipulate how the public thinks. The McCanns’ use of religious “code” is without a doubt sanctioned by Clarence Mitchell, who realizes that he must have some options up his sleeve in case the McCanns are charged, and even convicted.

The really horrible thing about this case is that not only are the McCanns lying and defrauding the public, making money on the death of their daughter, but also they are presenting themselves as symbols of grief-stricken parents. Furtherrmore, they are preparing to make a living in the future by playing this role. Thus, Gerry began (from very early on) to mention the “political issues raised by this case”, visited Washington D.C. to share his views, etc. Kate has said (through her friends) that she intends to work for child welfare (and for parents suffering loss) by setting up her own charity.

This is a little like inviting the Devil into a Church on Sunday to deliver the Sermon. Just incredible.

And it is for this reason I have NO tolerance for anyone supporting these detestable people, or for anyone who does not push for prosecution of child neglect.

I see you have not grown tired of your “argumentation” that child neglect is not very serious, should not be prosecuted, etc. For your information, it is a serious crime that can bring a sentence of several years. Lying in order to cover up such a crime is NOT “a little white lie”. Frankly, I’m astounded that you would think so and publicly state such an opinion.

Moreover, even if a Tapas couple did not know (to be hypothetical) that Madeleine was killed, if by lying about their own crime (child neglect) they interfere with the course of justice, then they ARE guilty of obstructing justice. It would further aggravate their guilt if they knowingly used their lies to cover up the killing (hiding of corpse, etc), but EVEN WITHOUT A KILLING, these people KNEW PERFECTLY WELL that a child disappeared, and that their lies would impact the investigation.

I’m really amazed at how craftily and methodically you look for ways to paint the Tapas9 as “innocent” if they were not conspirators in the killing or corpse-hiding. Unfortunately for the Tapas9, their lies and lack of cooperation constitutes a serious obstruction of justice, in addition to the child neglect. No way to get around that — and likely this is what has provided the pressure to induce belated cooperation.

The longer they continue to lie, and fail to correct their former lies, the more serious their crime, and (as a matter of course) the stiffer the punishment.

Better late than never.

It’s going to be like Elvis - she’ll turn up everywhere.

I think after 6 months, they would have to at least subconsciously believe she’s dead.

I think their odd choice of words is because they’re always thinking of the effect they want them to have on the hearer (they have an absolute faith in P.R. and spin) and because they want to emphasise that they are good, responsible parents (which I find selfish, in the light of the fate they left their child to).

eg. When Kate said she regretted not being there ‘at that minute’ - the subtext was, I’m always with her, I was only gone briefly and the abductor took advantage of it.

I do find it odd that so few people say they called out “Madeleine!” — like the person did to us. It’s the first thing I would do, too, call the girl’s name to see if she responded.

Then in the most recent interview, the six-month interview, Kate makes some truly weird word decisions– as Judith mentions — “she is in someone’s house” (God’s?)… and she’s “out there, somewhere” (in the ethers, like a ghost?). This most recent set of Kate statements actually were what more or less convinced me finally that Kate knows Madeleine is dead, the whole thing was sooooo very weird, but if taken in the context of Kate knowing Madeleine is dead, every word made sense suddenly. This does not tell us what happened– who killed her, or how, or who agreed, etc — but it does absolutely to me mean Kate knows Madeleine is dead.