https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1128005679439065088 ⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @Anvil161Anvil16 @PollyGraph69 You of all people should know that wasn't a criminal case. It was to ascertain if Goncalo Amaral had a right to voice his opinion. God knows, textusa banged on about it not being a libel trial enough. 7:34 pm - 13 May 2019
*****
Oh, look who is now trying to push the idea that the damages trial was a libel trial? Mr Thompson.
Let’s overlook the fact that Gonçalo Amaral felt the need to come out himself and publish a statement saying that it was a damages trial and not a libel one. Again, Mr Thompson disrespects Gonçalo Amaral.
But the fact that it wasn’t a libel trial, but a damages one, helps explain the PROVEN/NOT PROVEN facts determined by the Portuguese Justice system, as well as it also explains why the judge cut off Gerry’s words when he tried to bring the dogs up in court.
Upon reading the news about the most recent trial session, I am certain that the vast majority of journalists doesn’t know what is being discussed in court, and have not informed correctly.
Let us be clear. What is at stake is to find out:
- Whether the writing of my book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” was a lawful or unlawful action;
- Whether or not the plaintiffs have suffered damages and whether or not there are facts to prove it;
- Whether or not it is possible to establish a causal nexus between the book and such damages.
This is what is at stake.
Concerning the book’s lawfulness, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appellate Court’s decision within the injunction that preceded the current action. The truth is that for the Appellate Court’s Illustrious Judges, as can be concluded from that decision, the lawfulness of the book’s publication is indisputable.
With proof of the lawfulness of the book, the matter should rest here, without the need to investigate anything further, namely concerning the damages that the plaintiffs complain about.
Nonetheless, we should note that even if the lawfulness may still be at stake, there is still the need to establish a causal nexus between the publication and the damages that the plaintiffs complain about, such as deep depression, social isolation, etc. And, of course, to prove that said damages, no matter where they originate from, really exist.
Concerning the social part, it seems obvious to me, if we pay attention to the countless social events that the plaintiffs have participated in, including speeches at the British Parliament, interviews on television shows like Oprah Winfrey’s, gala dinners with illustrious personalities, namely British, among others, that said social isolation is totally false.
Concerning the depressions, although they are in no way proved within the case, in my opinion, in fact it would be very strange if they didn’t exist. The disappearance of a daughter, whether she is dead or alive, whether or not she was abducted, has to originate enormous consequences of that kind. How strange would it be if that wasn’t the case! But about this issue I won’t say anything further, given that the plaintiffs seem to attribute to me and my book all of their pain, as if said disappearance, followed by their arguido status and other circumstances that surround the case, were of no importance, or weren’t more than enough!
Unfortunately, due to clearly dilatory manoeuvres from the plaintiffs, that have once more forced a postponement of the hearing, I am afraid that the trial will drag on – as they clearly wish -, and we won’t have a sentence soon, as I wish would happen, and as I long for. Furthermore, the judicial holidays have already started and, as the Illustrious Judge explained, with the new judiciary organisation coming into force on the 1st of September, the process’ slowness will be considerably increased.
However, my trust in Portuguese justice remains steadfast.
All that is left for me is to recognise and thank you for all the support that I have received, from all those that believe in justice and in truth, without which it would have been impossible for me to fight this lawsuit. Or to lead me to ponder, as I do, to file a lawsuit against the McCann couple and others, in order to be compensated for the enormous damages that they have caused me already, on all levels, such as moral, professional and financial.
The time to judicially react to all those who have put my privacy, my intimacy, my freedom of expression and opinion, and my survival conditions at stake is approaching.
They have tried to assassinate me civilly, but due to the support and solidarity of all of you, they were not successful.
Why did Wright and Cameron try to explain away foul smells in the boot of the car if it was blood? Why was the boot left open every night? Why was the lawyer’s statement about witnessing this not included in the PJ files, as GA said in the podcast 10 that it should be included and didn’t know why it wasn’t?
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1127995592012128256 00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa •Lies, myths & insanity helps the McCanns. •Tells the public McCanns are attacked by hater trolls with RIDICULOUS theories. •Public feel sorry for them. So who's really protecting #McCann? Textusa & the 3 amigos or those who speak FACT? (censored) 6:54 pm - 13 May 2019
*****
Reason for censoring: we don’t promote filth in the blog.
Interesting.
Those who say they believe that Maddie’s body was in the Scenic, us, are pro-McCann.
Those who say that they don’t believe that Maddie’s body was ever in the Scenic, Mr Thompson, are anti-McCann.
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1128011644913836033 00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx Well come on! 😂Highest court in the land says it's PROVEN a cadaver was in scenic and McCanns walk free? As if! Demented! 7:58 pm - 13 May 2019
*****
Portuguese courts, shut your doors, Sade Anslow knows better law than you do.
Let’s look at the following hypothetical scenario, in ANY civilised justice system. Not in the Portuguese one but in any.
A murder has been committed. There are 3 suspects. The investigation has determined that one of them is the murderer but cannot prove which one was. One of the 3 is guilty, the other 2 innocent.
Does the system arrest all 3 or let all 3 walk event though it knows one of them is guilty? It obviously let’s the 3 walk free.
Want an example that is VERY WELL known to all those following the Maddie case? The Leonoer Cipriano torture.
We don’t think any torture happened but the court ruled as proven that it did. We only have to respect that decision. But was anyone sentenced because of it? No.
The court ruled that there had been torture but was unable to determine who the torturer(s) was(were) and so no one was sentenced.
The fact that A body was proven to have been in the Scenic, does not mean it’s enough evidence to sentence anyone because of it as it remains to be determined who was THE cadaver.
Comment received on the previous post that we are bringing it over to this one:
Fragrant Frog13 May 2019, 20:53:00 The McCanns could not contest the dogs' alerts as the proceedings were civil rather than criminal. The proven fact was that cadaver & blood dog alerts were recorded in the PJ investigation files, not who or what the dogs were actually alerting to. Had this element not been recorded in the files, Amaral would have been guilty of libel by manufacturing the the alerts & their relevance to the criminal case.
*****
Links please to the legal Portuguese norm that prohibits contestation because the proceedings are civil.
You cannot say Gonçalo Amaral would not be guilty of anything. To have that certainty the McCanns would have to go through a libel trial, which they avoided to do.
In our opinion, as we will later explain, but will sum up for now, is that the McCanns did not contest because it would open up the Pandora’s box of discussing matter of fact which the McCann legal team avoided at all costs.
Gerry’s attempt of sneaking in the dogs was to allow him, and only him, to discuss facts without the defense being prepared. Reason why, the judge silenced him rightly so.
Both the sides were on equal terms to contest the PROVEN/NOT PROVEN facts when the judge presented the list to both legal teams, a very reasonable time before pronouncing sentence.
The wording in the PROVEN/NOT PROVEN facts do not refer that the “files say this…”. They are PROVEN facts as they are written. Don’t invent, you were very unfortunate when you did it regarding the absurd deal.
The McCanns opted for a private civil claim for defamation damages because it was the more suitable option. A criminal prosecution would have meant they had to prove Amaral was lying when he accused them of concealing Madeleine's body - i.e. he made a false public accusation as per article 365 of criminal law. A successful case using that pathway would have resulted in a conviction for Amaral but no retribution. As an ex-police officer he would also have had a greater degree of protection against criminal proceedings. Taken fromhttp://legaldb.freemedia.at/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf “During the Lisbon seminar, a representative of the association of Portuguese prosecutors suggested that civil and criminal defamation laws served distinct purposes. The former, he said, are meant to protect or repair damage, while the latter serve, in part, a preventative purpose, warning against repeat offence by the defendant in question or by others.” With regard to the dogs, Grime had not appeared as a witnessin court therefore the validity of the canine alerts could be neither assessed by the judge nor contested by anyone else. The tort subject to proceedings was defamation, not the disappearance of Madeleine.
BTW Inspector Paulo Ferreira told Kate, as she left Portimao on Sept. 6th, to listen to what her lawyer had to say very carefully (after the lengthy meeting between lawyer & PJ officers). Why did he say that? There was also a witness in the form of Abreu’s assistant who would also be able to verify the nature of the discussion at the villa. Quite why you dismiss any “offer” only shows your bias, especially in light of Amaral’s admission such discussions took place at Portimao.
After insulting Pinto de Abreu’s competence, you now insult Isabel Duarte’s. Nice.
Well, at least it’s not only Gonçalo Amaral who gets to be called incompetent by you, the McCann legal team also get it. When are going to pick on Rogério Alves?
Defamation is a crime. Crime goes to criminal courts. There’s no grey area here.
A “private civil claim for defamation” is an oxymoron, contradictory terms appearing in conjunction. If you had said that it was almost exactly defamation it would mean the same, just words.
“A private civil claim for defamation damages” is just a soundbite to make you look clever in order to confuse
One does not get to opt to which court a crime goes to. Defamation is a crime. Defamation damages are damages from a crime.
What you are saying would be the same as saying someone opted out to go to civil court for damages from a malicious stabbing and expect the legal system to ignore the stabbing happened.
To say a “private civil claim for defamation damages” is to say that Isabel Duarte does not know one end of a law book from another. What an insulting thing to say. Like saying Gerry McCann couldn’t tell a heart from a liver.
Any lawyer knows not to file a complaint about a crime in a civil court. Implying Isabel Duarte doesn’t know that is greater insult than implying that Pinto de Abreu was a messenger boy to something any lawyer knows to be illegal.
Law is tricky. Very tricky and it does work in mysterious ways. The only way for the McCanns had to “punish” Gonçalo Amaral and not to have the facts of the case discussed, exposed or revealed was to do what they did, go for damages and not the crime of defamation. We have already acknowledged that it was a brilliant legal tactic.
But this had its downsides for the McCanns. You see by claiming damages but not going over the “criminal” threshold, the McCanns had to recognise as factual what was in the PJ files, on which the book was based.
Meaning, by claiming damages on the basis of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and not claiming innocence – if they were to do so they would have to contest why the case was archived and not closed – they tacitly recognised as factual all the files said.
After all, in practical terms what is in the files does not condemn them, otherwise they would have been charged.
For example, the fact that the dogs found marks of blood and cadaver scent in the Scenic, in theory does not point any conclusive guilt onto the McCanns. If it did, they would have been charged.
So, when they accepted to go for damages instead of defamation, they set a trap on themselves: that they accept what is in the files.
The first trap, is that they forever forfeited the possibility to file for defamation. By complaining only based on the principle of presumption of innocence and not on innocence itself, they cannot later claim they are innocent. They have assumed that they only are presumed innocent.
And the judge surprised all. She not only not allowed for facts to be discussed in court – they were tacitly accepted by the plaintiffs so correctly not to be discussed there – as she decided to put the acceptance of the facts by the plaintiffs in black and white with the Proven/Not Proven list she sent to both legal teams for consideration prior pronouncing sentence. She wanted to make sure that there was absolutely no defamation involved.
She snapped the trap the McCanns had set.
She forced them to agree that there was no libel. If they had contested any of the facts, namely the dogs, then it would be her duty to convene a session to clarify that, and there determine what would be the relevance of this in the damages claim.
If, because of contestation, she came to the conclusion that the facts were questionable, then that would have serious implications outside a civil court, as the process fell clearly under criminal justice.
So, the McCanns not only had their hands tied by themselves, as they sealed the fate of not ever being able to deny the facts deemed proven by the court.
The McCanns could do nothing about it. They could not contest the Proven/Not proven facts because the presumption of their entire defense was not about defamation – so accepting the files – but on the non-abidance of the principle of the presumption of innocence, which was not in contradiction with what was in the files.
Martin Grime did not testify in court because he was not called as a witness by either legal team. If he had been, he would not be speaking about the dogs. If he ever speaks in a court of law about the dogs, it will be in a criminal court, not in a civil one.
“BTW Inspector Paulo Ferreira told Kate, as she left Portimao on Sept. 6th, to listen to what her lawyer had to say very carefully”
Link please. Thank you.
“There was also a witness in the form of Abreu’s assistant who would also be able to verify the nature of the discussion at the villa.”
Link please. Thank you.
Now, not only are you persisting on calling Pinto de Abreu incompetent, as you now are claiming he was so in front of one of his staff. Nice.
By the way, if you are as closely involved in events as to be aware of the private conversations between lawyers and police in relation to this “offer”, perhaps you can give us the precise wording of this “offer”?
Not really understanding your interpretation, Textusa. McCanns could have opted for a private prosecution for criminal defamation, which would have been cheaper but permitted the defence to challenge, at the inquiry stage led by the PP, using the (unproven) facts contained in the criminal case files. As the McCanns were suing the author, book publisher & a media outlet, how would that have worked in a criminal prosecution? If the PP decided the case was inadmissible, McCanns could have still insisted charges were filed but the outcome would probably have been unfavourable. Portuguese law refers to both criminal & civil defamation so I'm unclear as to why you think it's only criminal. The last part of your post - try reading Kate's book. It's a valuable source of real information rather than the trivia which flew out through that open window in Portimao police station.
just to get this clear....the damages were contested on the basis that the files were a given and they should be believed to be innocent....until proven otherwise? However they were found to be in the eyes of the court suspects until proven otherwise...andby that time had accepted the files as is?? Is that it?
“The damages were contested on the basis that the files were a given and they should be believed to be innocent....until proven otherwise?”
Absolutely correct. When they opted for damages, they tacitly assumed there was no defamation. The case was based on “we’re not saying that he’s not right but we are stressing that the fact that he COULD be wrong and because of that he is damaging our family because he should be presuming us to be innocent and not say we are not, even though he COULD be right in saying we are not”.
And the Portuguese justice system, said very clearly, when one is presumed innocent then one is only PRESUMED innocent and that doesn’t mean that one is innocent. And because one has not been declared innocent, those who believe one isn’t may exercise their freedom of speech.
“However they were found to be in the eyes of the court suspects until proven otherwise...andby that time had accepted the files as is?”
Incorrect. The courts never found the McCanns suspect. That time was when they were arguidos and stop being arguidos when the process was archived by the Public Ministry, and that was before any court legal proceedings.
The courts simply clarified what presumption of innocence meant: not having been charged but simultaneously not having been cleared.
An inquiry led by the Public Prosecutor (PP) is not a trial. The PP, in the end of its work done in whatever process they deal with, they decide on whether to close the case, archive it until further evidence, or send it for trial. The PP does not sentence anyone to anything, that is the exclusive role of the courts in any civilised and sovereign country.
The author, book publisher & a media outlet, if the PP concluded that there was reason to do so, would be taken to criminal trial.
The question here is about proven facts, more specifically the marks of blood and cadaver scent in the Scenic, so we don’t understand what unproven facts that you are referring to, would help prove whether Gonçalo Amaral committed the crime of defamation. Can you please detail which?
Suing, means going directly to a court, meaning the complainant does not feel any necessary need for further determination of proof. No need for any intervention from the PP. Exactly what happened with the McCanns and their damages process in the civil court.
If the complainant feels that there are facts still to be better determined, then a complaint should be filed at the Public Prosecutor for action. Any lawyer knows that.
“Portuguese law refers to both criminal & civil defamation so I'm unclear as to why you think it's only criminal.”
Please quote the Portuguese law you are referring to (by the way, this is the third time that we are requesting for you to back up your legal claims and you have yet to provide any).
Defamation is a crime and a crime is… a crime. There are no crimes that are so little that they are not crimes. Like there is no such thing as being a little pregnant, there is no such thing as defamation not being a crime. But, as we are certain you are going to provide the legal norms that will prove us wrong, we will then – but only then – have no problem in recognising we are wrong.
If defamation is a crime, why aren't Portuguese jails full of people who've been found guilty of such a crime? Is it because even the judges feel the law is ridiculous? If Amaral & co were found guilty of criminal defamation, who would receive the proceeds of the illicit book & documentary - the State, the McCanns or would the criminals keep their profits? The tort is defamation. The liability for damages arising from that tort falls under the Civil code. I'm sure you can find the article number if you look hard enough. Perhaps you need to read the book again to find the cites you requested. They're all in there.
M's body was in the scenic. For them to leave the boot open day in, and every night. Even Mark S has made a huge effort to point that one out. Doesn’t Ben believe in Mark S?
Not to publish identified reader at 13 May 2019, 22:44:00
We only have transcribed fully what the picture attached by your friend Mr Thompson said. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6dOQ7yXsAE_2jq.jpg
If that is your authorship and not of Astro or/and QV, that is something you should take up with Mr Thompson or with the site he linked up in his tweet, not with us.
Not to publish identified reader 14 May 2019, 01:28:00
Ethics is something that comes from within, either one has it or one doesn’t and we are not going to take any lessons of ethics from you.
We transcribed what was in the picture and we quoted the source where the picture was made public. If the source has infringed your authorship rights, it’s up to the source to correct it and if it doesn’t it’s where should address this issue.
By the way, we agree fully with you on this. You have every right to be outraged. It is not pleasant to see one’s work being reproduced without acknowledgement – an experience the blog is familiar with.
Would we have a problem in stating that you are the author? As per words above, of course not and we will gladly make public your claim. However, abiding by the principle of the “do not publish” comments, unless you allow us to use your name, ethics don’t allow us to do so.
On whether you are friends or not with Mr Thompson, as you were all friendly bashing the blog over at NotTextusa, we assumed you were. It seems we were wrong. Our apologies.
Comment submitted to the previous post that we are bringing over to this one:
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The protection of the McCanns by José António Sara...":
You're wrong and taking peoples words out of context entirely. STOP using Amaral's words twisting them. And everyone else's. Disgusting. Silverdoe NOT Mr Thompson
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 14 May 2019, 03:56:00”
*****
Silverdoe,
Please quote what Gonçalo Amaral’s words we have twisted in your opinion.
You are ignoring the supreme court rulings. Amaral won thank goodness AGAIN - But, the supreme courts stated themselves it was not a criminal case, it was a freedom of speech case. IF it were a criminal case, they'd have used those kinds of rulings via ECHR cases like they did regarding cases which were libel, not criminal. Portuguese and English, the courts are indeed different, you can't have it all your own way. And the McCann's did contest even the supreme court rulings hence the annulment request which was also denied. I'll await the 'belittling childish reply back, don't worry.' Just don't use the later facts whilst you do......Silverdoe
It was not a criminal case? Really? Are you serious? Wow... and here we were thinking that the fact the case took place in a civil court and not a criminal one was a dead give-away that it was not a criminal case... and that it was not libel.
By the way, Amaral did not lose or win AGAIN. One, he didn't win, he simply didn't lose. The Appeal Court and later the Supreme Justice Court gave him reason, while the First Instance Court gave reason to the McCanns.
The complaint, which you attached, had nothing to do with Gonçalo Amaral. It was a legal question between the McCanns and the Supreme Justice Court itself. In that decision, the McCanns lost and the Supreme Justice Court did not lose.
In the end of the process – which is the only thing that matters – the McCanns lost, no one won.
Now, back to the request you have not replied to. You said "STOP using Amaral's words twisting them." We are waiting for you to tell us which.
Silver It’s only the Mcs who could win the case as they instigated it. They lost the case. GA didn’t win, he just didn’t lose. He gained nothing from it, in terms of money.
I understand that is the case as per the 'win or not' and if I am wrong there I am happy to be wrong, my ego can take being wrong, but the difference is, in the UK and in Portugal, laws are different and stated differently and that can be used by 'some' to abuse and twist into what they are not. Where did I say it wasn't in a civil court not a criminal one? I said and I can show where I corrected myself, don't forget to use the later facts when you do reply, I was perfectly polite. I am still being perfectly polite. Amaral won as he has our support. He had people behind him who kindly donated to help him. People wish to hear HIS voice and he done right by his ethics - The McCann's thought they could silence him forever they didn't so perhaps so much not a 'legal win' as much as an 'ethical win'? I apologise for poor wording, on MY part. They pushed even after via the annulment request which the McCann's lost, and now the ECHR application. You're not lenient to the fact that 1 - UK and Portugal laws are different and 2 - Ben was actually agreeing with you here, from what I can see, and then you used Amaral's words to twist what he meant Textusa13 May 2019, 19:53:00 https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1128005679439065088 ⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @Anvil161Anvil16 @PollyGraph69 You of all people should know that wasn't a criminal case. It was to ascertain if Goncalo Amaral had a right to voice his opinion. God knows, textusa banged on about it not being a libel trial enough. 7:34 pm - 13 May 2019
*****
Oh, look who is now trying to push the idea that the damages trial was a libel trial? Mr Thompson.
Let’s overlook the fact that Gonçalo Amaral felt the need to come out himself and publish a statement saying that it was a damages trial and not a libel one. Again, Mr Thompson disrespects Gonçalo Amaral.
But the fact that it wasn’t a libel trial, but a damages one, helps explain the PROVEN/NOT PROVEN facts determined by the Portuguese Justice system, as well as it also explains why the judge cut off Gerry’s words when he tried to bring the dogs up in court.
Do you have any different meaning to these words: "textusa banged on about it not being a libel trial enough."?
That is clearly saying that the trial was libel one, and that - now we are providing an opinion - we were very stupid to say that it was not a libel trial.
But that's our interpretation of his words. What is yours?
I think Ben sticks to facts, which I respect... And I think you like to twist words to suit, especially our tweets. Which I don't respect. I am still learning things myself in this case, but myths do not help it no matter where they come from... Silverdoe
NotTextusa: “In light of the fact that famous female impersonator and chronic lunatic Textusa has been flapping his wasted gums…”
In the sake of balance, when are you lot going to out the 2 “famous female impersonators” and/or “famous male impersonators” from the Justice for Madeleine FB Group?
We remind the names that are in question: Kirstie Murray, Ben Thompson, Paul Rees, Natalie Charslesworth, Netty Estelle and Trish Hills Allen.
Not confirming or denying the “gender” accusation, we would like to point out that Maria Santos has always assumed herself as a heteronym created by 3 people, while all the names above pretend to be real people.
You are not permitted a “heteronym created by three people” on Facebook, it is a breach of their terms which protect against people like you. When I complained that “Bronte Textusa” was not a real person, you had to change it, and provide real evidence of identity. So we know you used the ID of a real person, called Maria Santos, to get around it. We also know that wasn’t you, so it is abundantly clear that you are creating a false persona using someone else’s real details.
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1128222609903181824 SheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @strackers74 and 3 others Eddie 'seemed' to mark the car door where the key went. The key he and Keela both marked twice that had Gerry's blood on it. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/59-DA-27.htm No one is dissing the dogs, it's stating facts. That's bad now? Just because we have different opinions, they shouldn't gang up. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6hAIGWXoAA1Xvz.png 9:56 am - 14 May 2019
[The picture attached says the following:
“The Renault Scenic vehicle ? number plate 59-DA-27 was removed to the third floor of the underground car park and was subjected to a forensic search by officers from the Scientific Police Laboratory and another sniffer dog inspection that began at 03.49 on 7th August by the dog KEELA, which detected human blood remains, the following results were noted:
03.53 ? the dog ?marked? a zone on the right inferior side of the inside of the luggage compartment of the vehicle;
04.11 ? the dog 'marked' the compartment on the driver's side, which was seen to contain the vehicle's key, of a plastic electronic card type, with a key ring from the Budget car rental agency.
With the aim of confirming whether the dog had effectively ?marked? the vehicle's key, which was inside the compartment on the driver's side, at 04.13 the key in question was removed from the vehicle and hidden in a place far from the vehicle on the third floor of the underground car park.
At about 04.14 it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of a box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which, effectively, the vehicle's key had been hidden.
At approximately 04.50 a new sniffer dog inspection was carried out using the dog EDDY which detects cadaver odour, using the vehicle key which for this purpose was hidden on the fourth floor of the underground car park, far away from the vehicle.
At about 04.51, it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of the box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which the key had been hidden.”]
*****
It has already been established that the key FOB had blood. For us Keela alerting to blood is the proof that there was blood, no need for any forensic report to confirm.
But the question remains – and you are one who says she only deals with FACTS – where does it say in the files that it was Gerry’s blood?
And where is it also in the files that Gerry provided as an explanation that the blood on the key FOB was his, because he cut his hands?
The before mentioned FSS's Interim Report indicated that there are, resulting from the examinations made to the luggage compartment, biological components that may be compatible with the ones of the minor ; however, this test does not definitely show that the traces originated in MADELEINE's body.
- The dead body scent dog, as well as the human blood detecting dog, also gave Alert to the key of the before mentioned vehicle. The Laboratory also confirmed the existence of GERALD McCANN's DNA in the key. Furthermore, this last Alert was given by the dog's when the key was placed away from the vehicle and in a place out of sight - Gerry's DNA not Madeleine's.... https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm Silverdoe
The fact is this surely? The key WAS moved AWAY From the car. BOTH dogs hit on the key again, meaning 1 - They were spot on and 2 - They corroborated each other and 3 - That the key was what Eddie hit on, but if you see where he barks at the car? It's near where you unlock the car door, so, would logic then dictate that's what Eddie was barking out hence the reason they as in, Grime and the PJ moved the key away from the car to test that theory? I think that's exactly what they done meaning only Keela actually alerted INSIDE the car where 15/19 markers DNA matched Madeleine again , Keela doing exactly what she was trained to do. The dogs were both unique and amazing. How or if Gerry did cut himself anywhere for the blood to get on the keys would have been down to the PJ to determine, I haven't seen it said in the files anywhere myself. Silverdoe
It's not proven as FACT that Eddie DIDN'T signal to CADAVER (and blood) odour when barking outside the hired Scenic car. It's quite possible that, given that the door was closed, Eddie barked to signal cadaver - its smell being more powerful, or pungent, than blood. Irrespective of that, Keela signalling to blood in the boot of the car is not going to be shoo'd away with the rotten meat, fish scenario, I hope? IT was found to have Maddie's DNA after all - even though the Scenic was hired after her 'abduction' / death.
https://twitter.com/zoramac_/status/1128259545342664704 Zora @zoramac_ Textusa was unhappy with my friendship with Ben and I was unhappy that Ben was accused of being involved in stalking a young girl and so we’re no longer friends. It’s no more juicy than that /end. 12:23 pm - 14 May 2019
*****
We do not confirm or deny allegations made about us. But we have to open an exception in this case as it is being dealt with by authorities.
To be very clear. We have never accused Mr Thompson of being involved in the stalking.
The stalking was done by professional, competent people. We’re talking about the action itself, not about who ordered and/or allowed it to ever take place.
No one would trust someone unhinged, unreliable and untrustworthy as Mr Thompson with such sensitive information. In the slightest tight spot, he has no problem in throwing anyone under the bus to save his skin, and that is if he’s unable to run away and not meet up with people. Only an idiot would trust a person like this.
Nor have we accused anyone of the gang of taking part in the stalking.
What we accuse Mr Thompson, and the rest of the gang, of is of being involved with people he knows to be linked upstream to those who ordered the stalking.
And we also accuse him of making this anonymous comment on NT’s blog regarding the stalking:
“Anonymous28 November 2018 at 20:36 A member of your family (pretending for a second that it's not just one bored guy writing the whole thing) is stalked.
You've done the right thing, going to authorities for help. What next?
A. Allow authorities to look into it, and await their conclusions. Keep quiet about what you think happened so as not to cause hindrance.
B. Bleat about it in public, potentially stunting any progress police could make/making sure to include a microscopic image of a nonspecific police report/drawing conclusions by yourself/instead of thinking of safety measures like providing her a phone, openly arse about in the streets playing investigator/create new characters on the fly (1 weirdo becoming 3 'operatives', which sounds so much more important)
C. Nothing because it never happened, and this loony attention grab wouldn't fool anyone”
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1128281563257626626 ⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz Replying to @bitconfused90 @strackers74 and 2 others Well you're right about some people trying to change what was already a well established fact. But, seeing as my tweets are lifted by the idiot blogger and then their sad groupies start to lie about the dogs to make me look bad, I'll not bother sharing the truth with ppl who ask. 1:51 pm - 14 May 2019
*****
When has ever telling the truth made anyone look bad?
If one accepts the new revisionists and their version of events, did the alerts of both Keela and Eddie behind the sofa mean the finding of blood residue was the only certainty? Does that mean there is also no proof M died in 5a? Does that mean M wasn’t left behind the sofa after her death? That Eddie may have been alerting to blood and that blood could have had an innocent explanation. To add to a certain person’s belief that M’s body wasn’t carried in the car boot? Perhaps the revisionists could clarify.
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1128794734447747072 Green Leaper @FragrantFrog Replying to @CarlaSpade What would children have been doing at a VIP swinging event? Where did it take place? Where are the photos? 11:50 pm - 15 May 2019
*****
What pictures? Those with blurred out faces taken by tabloid paparazzi because, according to someone commenting here on the blog, some villagers complained they could see naked bodies through windows?
No, there are no such pictures of the swinging in Luz in 2007. We only have locals saying that there were parties of sexual nature, and you saying there were gay swinging parties in the area at the time.
We published an article in this comment: https://textusa.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-protection-of-mccanns-by-jose.html?showComment=1557413646312#c4293501095696017095
This was the article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6969091/Inside-80-ticket-swingers-club-Exmoor-National-Park.html
We then followed with these 2 replies to the comment:
“Textusa9 May 2019, 15:55:00 If swinging is perfectly acceptable, one must wonder why the faces of the people in these photographs are censored:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12823674-6969091-Adventurous_twosomes_and_saucy_single_women_wound_their_way_thro-a-89_1556466954757.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12823678-6969091-Scenes_from_Saturday_s_party-m-88_1556466945229.jpg Caption: Adventurous twosomes and saucy single women wound their way through the country lanes of Exmoor to join a late-night sex party on Saturday at The Croydon Hall Hotel on Exmoor
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12821578-6969091-The_venue_is_currently_offering_late_night_sex_sessions_using_te-a-90_1556466975647.jpg Caption: The venue, which hosts the private sex club, is currently under investigation by the Exmoor National Park Authority over concerns that the venue may not have proper planning permission for its activities
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/17/12824230-6969091-image-m-101_1556467946420.jpg Caption: One local says he has been forced to leave the village since the sex events began. Pictured: Attendees arriving at Saturday's event
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12823012-0-image-a-79_1556465721381.jpg Caption: Neighbours are particularly concerned by the disruption caused by randy revellers coming and going until four in the morning
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12822542-6969091-image-m-140_1556464760748.jpg Caption: The owner of the venue has denied claims that his guests are disrespectful of neighbours and says he has soundproofed the building”
And:
“Textusa9 May 2019, 15:55:00 And if swinging is so accepted, why this?
“And residents in the sleepy village of Rodhuish in Somerset, where the hotel is located, are 'sickened' by the 'Disneyland for adults' that has sprung up. One says he has been forced to leave the village since the sex events began. 'People come to Exmoor on holiday and they do not expect to stumble across a sex club in this beautiful area. It makes me feel sick,' said Anne Pitts, 66, who moved to the area nine years ago, told Mail Online.””
Then we received this reply:
“Anonymous10 May 2019, 18:49:00 You are missing the point.
The swingers don't give a shit. It's just the locals who are complaining”
*****
It wasn’t us speaking of the villagers. Glad you agree with us that it is ridiculous.
You claim there are no pictures of the big round table, therefore it doesn’t exist. Well, applying the same logic there was no swinging either, as no pictures exist.
“https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1128805680432013312 Another gem from the Frog. So how would the McCanns explain going home with 1 less child than they went away with....”
*****
Bringing the tweet over to the blog:
“Green Leaper @FragrantFrog Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16 As I've said before, if there was any sort of cover-up the Portuguese police would never have been called in the first place. 12:33 am - 16 May 2019”
Now there's an individual who hasn't got the slightest clue as to the complexities of the Madeleine is 'missing' global charade. As Kate's mother said years ago "there's a lot of people involved in this."
Too right there is, and then some, they all KNOW, each and every last one of them.
Look at Totman, he still had the same clothes years later? As if!
For FB Anon Difficult choice between either explaining to the world why you are going home missing one child or using your VIP connections from the outset to sort out the necessary cover-story, documentation & arrangements without involving the police or media. You decide which was hypothetically more appropriate.
“Reply to the Frog: You are saying that if they had wanted to, the McCanns could have used their VIP connections to cover up the death of a child. I would like to know how 2 ordinary doctors on an alleged ordinary family holiday, would be able to muster up the kind of help that would be needed to cover up such a death. And also why said VIPs would assist the McCanns in this way? What would be in it for them? Why would they take the risks unless the VIPs were somehow complicit?”
That's the conundrum you have to work out, Textusa. Publicity or privacy - which would your hypothetical VIP swingers have opted for in the immediate aftermath?
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1129316323757101057 Mari Welzel @umweltbuerger Block a Rat. one more 'rat' popped up.? ! ould be madame herself furthering her case without her face, eventually you may hear 'f.....g t.....s' it's chronic, it comes through the backdoor, her way to plant her (simulated abduction) case. All IMO #mccann 10:22 am - 17 May 2019
*****
Brilliant Mari. Whispering sussed him out as well.
No, Mari, it’s not “madame herself” but it is a rat. The Rat.
We have been busy today – reason why we haven’t replied to the Frog yet, but we will in time – because we have been collating information about the Rat.
Before we publish his tweets, we have to warn readers that he uses an “anti-screengrab” technique. That is, he likes to say what he wants to say in more than 1 tweet. Unfortunately for the Rat, we are patient. Very patient.
Makes it harder to follow, his readers only get to grasp the main points, makes it easier to veer off in different threads in ‘mid-sentence’. All intentional as readers will see.
And all readers familiar with the case, will very quickly be able to spot who the rat is. However, 2 hints. His Twitter account was suspended recently and his blog is in such a state that if any EVRD dog would pass within a mile of it would be howling at the moon all night long.
Let’s start on how the Rat has thrown us all of track. With his views on the debate launched by Mr Thompson on whether Eddie could only have alerted to blood in the Scenic:
https://twitter.com/PollyGraph69/status/1127335486777958400 Debbie Lee Perry @PollyGraph69 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NancyParks8 and 48 others Do you believe madeleine #McCann was abducted? 👆 11:11 PM - 11 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127485895115005952 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @PollyGraph69 @NancyParks8 and 48 others What I believe is irrelevant. There is no evidence that she was. Believing otherwise is as random and arbitrary as believing martians descended and took her with the purpose of bringing her back one day equipped with the information required to cure cancer. 9:09 AM - 12 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127486645509459969 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @PollyGraph69 and 49 others All I would say to people who do believe in the abduction theory is to ask the questions: How many people have died in 5a over the years, why were they not reported and why did they only die in 5a and not any other apartment? How many bodies on average are being transported in 9:12 AM - 12 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/BourgeoisViews/status/1127510466379636736 BourgeoisViews @BourgeoisViews Replying to @IsmailARat5 @PollyGraph69 and 47 others Why does it matter? The dog alerts were uncorroborated. There's no way for you to know they weren't false alerts. 10:46 AM - 12 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127521500498726913 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @BourgeoisViews @PollyGraph69 and 48 others They weren’t false alerts. Those dogs don’t make false alerts. That’s why the test for cadaverine contamination is an EVRD alert. And there is no other known test for it. The test for an accurate EVRD is continous demonstration of ability. What do you have invested in 11:30 AM - 12 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127522355998265344 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 48 others Inferring discreditation on a creditable, reliable method? What can you objectively gain from an incredulously determined insistence that an unevidenced and statistically improbable failure of an attested method? I don’t understand your investment in a futile argument. 11:34 AM - 12 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/BourgeoisViews/status/1127530205449469953 BourgeoisViews @BourgeoisViews Replying to @IsmailARat5 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others Actually, what has not been researched is what uncorroborated dog alerts mean. So since we can't know that such alerts aren't false alerts, they aren't evidence. 12:05 PM - 12 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127576926045057024 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @BourgeoisViews @PollyGraph69 and 48 others It doesn’t need researching. Why would it need researching? It means “uncorroborated.” Not “invalidated.” Not “disproven.” Not “false.” Not “meaningless.” “Uncorroborated.” 3:11 PM - 12 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127577341646049280 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 49 others They don’t make “false alerts.” You rule out “false alerts” by presenting their history of not making false alerts. It’s a falsified scientific methodology. As a discipline it authenticates itself. You should learn about forensic science. It’s fascinating. 3:12 PM - 12 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Esjabe1/status/1128457785467899905 💙 єѕנαвє 💛 @Esjabe1 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 47 others How absurd!! That’s not how false alerts are ruled out, 3>. 1:31 AM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128576666941427717 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Esjabe1 @BourgeoisViews and 47 others It’s exactly how you rule false alerts out. Let’s take your claim... How many false alerts do you want to claim occurred? Per dog? Are you going for “all of them”? Ok... You want to sell the argument that not one forensic dog, but two, given the same locale, produced 9:23 AM - 15 May 2019
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128577218274373633 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others nothing but false alerts. Even when these “false alerts” confirmed the same locations, which is itself a verification of the validity of the alerts. So you’re arguing, what, that the two dogs agreed to just completely perform contrary to their training... We’ll forget for a 9:25 AM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128577788859047936 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others moment that unlike humans the dogs are very narrow in their abilities in this kind of work. Yes... they are. It’s a limitation. They literally can’t lie. They can’t adopt fakery, because they don’t know what it is and can’t comprehend the reasoning behind using it. So... 9:28 AM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128578631243051009 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others They literally don’t know how to make a fake alert. Not a clue. If their trigger scent is not there, if it cannot be pinpointed amidst all the odours they are literally trained to “shrug it off” and keep searching. If the scent they are trained to detect is not present, they 9:31 AM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128579279770533888 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others literally don’t know what to alert to... They’re trained to detect something so extremely specific, that to “alert” to something else would be ridiculous because the “somethig else” would literally have to be “everywhere” because it would have to be part of the background 9:34 AM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128579766599192576 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others signature through which they are trained to screen. If a “false alert” meant what you say it means, and the EVRD is eminently capable of them, then the EVRD should be impossible to deploy, because it would do nothing BUT alert from the minute it was unloaded to the moment it was 9:35 AM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128580418960351232 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others put back into transport, and it would be reasonable to believe that in a resort like Ocean Club, they might have at least half the properties identified by dog as being suspicious. So... consider statistically... Neither dog had a noteworthy issue of failing to do its job 9:38 AM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128580927259471872 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others before that deployment. Neither dog had such a history since that deployment. Neither dog demonstrated randomness or confusion at the scene, nor produced any other alerts which presented a cause for concern or evidence of misdirection in the way the dogs were behaving. Both the 9:40 AM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/BourgeoisViews/status/1128615354815717377 BourgeoisViews @BourgeoisViews Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 47 others Uncorroborated dog alerts are still not evidence. There's no way to know they're not false alerts. 11:57 AM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128638846474838016 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @BourgeoisViews @Esjabe1 and 47 others Those alerts were corroborated. They were not “false alerts.” EVRD’s don’t make “false alerts” - they’re only capable of valid alerts that have innocuous explanations. The way to know if an EVRD has made a “valid” alert, is that it has made an alert. 1:30 PM - 15 May 2019
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128719046919245824 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others You're very naive. Dogs operate at the level of 3 year olds and regard searches as a game with hopefully a reward at the end of it. They are perfectly capable of giving a false alert if they have had enough of the game: Eddie alerting to the clothes for example. #mccann 6:49 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128768971396849673 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others No, EVRD’s do not give “false alerts” if they “tire of the game.” To do such would denote a calculated choice on the part of the dog, and an act of deliberate fraud. They don’t demonstrate either. 10:07 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128769528446509057 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others Most curious but the purported “false alert” on the clothes did give rise to attempts to present a narrative in which an innocuous explanation was offered to mitigate the alert. Are you saying that agents acting on behalf of the McCann’s lied when they said it was reasonable for 10:10 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128770169436815361 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others certain items to be subject to positive alerts for cadaver contact due to Kate’s contact with deceased patients recently in her job as a GP? Are the close associates and professional apologists for the McCann’s in the habit of lying to try to protect Kate and Gerry from what 10:12 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128780132179689472 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others Eddie's alert to the #McCann clothes was a false positive. No evidence of any cadaver odour contaminant. He was just responding to subconscious cues from his handler. If the PJ had included clothes from other people, it would have been a fair test. 10:52 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128784149790298112 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others No, it wasn’t a “false positive”. It was an alert for what is crudely called “scent of death”. The test for “scent of death” is a “cadaver” or EVRD alert. No further test is required for the alert to be deemed credible. Corroborating evidence may be required for the alert to be 11:08 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128784665169604616 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others presented in court. The irony of you arguing against the dog being a reliable detector for something you can’t see or examine is that you’re arguing that the dog is not responding to a scent he’s proven to be highly sensitive to, but instead is responding to “subconscious cues” 11:10 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128796604805337088 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others If there's no scent, the dog can't respond to it. #mccann 11:57 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/maxine68711804/status/1128797562427924481 ✂️S N I P S ✂️ @maxine68711804 Replying to @Cerb32 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others They did respond 12:01 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128796425456902144 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others Re clothes: handler has already jumped to a premature conclusion of death. Dog does not detect cadaver scent so just ambles about and eventually picks up clothing in its mouth. Handler expects an alert. Dog recognises body language and barks to please handler. #mccann 11:56 PM - 15 May 2019
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128813040433094658 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others “Non-expert rambling bollocks I know better than police forensics specialist and I love doing this because I get you to watch a video and I have a line of bullshit for each & every action you see to convince you that everything you see means exactly what I tell you you’re seeing” 1:02 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128814519495610370 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others It's an alternative explanation for a highly unreliable, poorly designed inspection of the clothes. I don't expect you to consider this explanation as you have a closed mind and an axe to grind re the #mccann s 1:08 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128834360277381121 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others I’m not considering the explanation because it’s bollocks. No other reason. If it wasn’t meaningless, ignorant bollocks it would be getting discussed. “Highly unreliable...” False. 95% efficacy or more on well-developed EVRD’s in detection of “scent of death” traces 2:27 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128834997933232128 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others 95% is “extremely reliable.” “Poorly designed inspection of the clothes.” Lay clothes out. Pass detection equipment over clothes thoroughly, in accordance with normal procedure. Observe alert or no alert. Seems very well designed to me. Maximum efficiency. Job done. 2:30 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129303705742970880 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others Including clothes from other sources in the inspection of the clothes would have helped eliminate the possibility of handler cueing, which Grime says is the main source of false positives and which appears to have happened in this case. #mccann 9:32 AM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129328967385849856 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others How many clothes were examined in the tests, out of curiosity? 11:13 AM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128792590181117954 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others The other dog alerts appear to be sound but revealed nothing incriminating. Nobody knows what Eddie was alerting to in the bedroom of 5A. That doesn't stop anti #mccann s speculating and presenting their idle speculation as fact. 11:41 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128804271204515840 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others The “cadaver” dog alerts exclusively at the scene of a very dubious alleged abduction which were then corroborated by highly relevant forensic discoveries and that’s not “incriminating.” There’s a more than 95% certainty the EVRD was detecting cadaver odour and you appear to , 12:28 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/maxine68711804/status/1128793014053351424 ✂️S N I P S ✂️ @maxine68711804 Replying to @Cerb32 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others Nobody knows what the cadaver dog who only alerts to cadaverine was alerting to .... oh 11:43 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128974778184941568 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @maxine68711804 @IsmailARat5 and 32 others Eddie alerted to the odour of dried blood, which could come from a living person. He also alerted to the odour from pig and human cadavers and could not distinguish between the two odours. #mccann 11:45 AM - 16 May 2019
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128985099549192194 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @maxine68711804 and 32 others You have no support for your basis on ruling what the EVRD detected. If “cadaver scent” qualifies as dried blood, deploying an EVRD AND a blood dog to the location would be utterly redundant. If the dog can’t tell the difference between dried blood and cadaver, it literally 12:26 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128985365338034176 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 33 others has no purpose. And that is clearly not the position SYP, NSY, PJ, MG or ultimately the FBI took. 12:27 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128986281365708801 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 33 others As for “Eddie couldn’t tell the difference between pig and cadaver” either I ought to be astonished at the fact that for all their brainiacs and scientific methods, the police forces and contractors training these important tools made a fatal omission when they failed to factor 12:31 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128986774355742720 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 33 others in a way to demonstrate that the dog can distinguish between where Mrs Zapata had been laid, or a side of ham... Or... I can rest assured that the process is falsified and refined to the point where there are no grounds for defence lawyers to leap up in court shouting 12:33 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128987077662695424 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 33 others “Objection, your honour, but this cadaver dog can’t tell the difference between the smell of a human decomposing and a rotting pork pie.” 12:34 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129121390521737216 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @maxine68711804 and 32 others "Who's death?" "It has to be the death of a missing girl, Your Honour". "Because?" "Well, er ....., no pigs were reported missing in PdL, Your Honour." "Get out of my court!" #mccann 9:28 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129118447173079041 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @maxine68711804 and 32 others "Your Honour. Eddie has alerted to the odour of either a human cadaver, a pig cadaver, dried blood from a live or dead human or responded to subconscious cues from his handler during canine searches that ignored protocols designed to a avoid bias. It can only mean death." #mccann 9:16 PM - 16 May 2019
The Rat blows apart those who like Mr Thompson are trying to discredit Eddie’s alerts in the Scenic.
And we agree 99.9% of what the Rat says above. The truth is the truth, and it doesn’t matter from which mouth it comes from. If from a honest one or from a fetid one like the Rat’s.
Where do we disagree? When he says EVRD have a 95% efficiency rate. It’s not 95%, it’s 100%.
Interesting how no one with whom he’s debating him challenges him on this. He says 95% and they accept it just like that.
We challenge him. Rat, please show where you got that 95% figure from. Thank you.
https://twitter.com/NewsAnagrams/status/1128921982978813952 Tina @NewsAnagrams Replying to @may_shazzy @xxSiLverdoexx The John Lowe/FFS [typo later acknowledged, should have been FSS]report is a result of cover-up & protection of #mccanns 8:15 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128933382115581952 Shazzy May @may_shazzy Replying to @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx I suspect so. Dr Perlin can sort it out. He spoke respectfully of the Lowe Report. Technology in 2007 didnt have the ability to decipher DNA data. Dr Perlin is a true professional and a diplomatic man. #mccann 9:01 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128978754238373888 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx A “true professional” man would be speaking to the ACTUAL jurisdictional custodians of the evidence, professionally, and not through the media via a circus of expressly McCann Sympathist orchestration. A “true professional” would know precisely that offering consultative advice 12:01 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128986060128542720 Shazzy May @may_shazzy Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx How do you know Dr Perlin hasn't approached the right people through the correct channels? 12:30 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128991227943247872 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx Because if he was professional enough to do that he’d know that creating a “look at me, look at me” media circus is not gaining him friends. What he’s doing is so apparently directed by some agenda to turn this into a public circus that he’s made himself untrustworthy. 12:50 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1128991774725353472 SheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481543/Inventor-DNA-fingerprinting-says-hell-help-McCanns-clear-name.html THIS is unprofessional... Perlin offered, it's not down to him how others may react concerning that kind and generous offer. Those are YOUR opinions. Not facts....... What good have you done like he has in the world? 12:53 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128997614920392705 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams Perlin doesn’t need to offer. Anyone who needs his services can find him. As they can find other, equally competent labs in Europe or Japan. No one needed a media circus adding to the case. Perlin created one. Why? 1:16 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1128997963815170049 SheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams So, genuine question.... Brace yourself.... Who the hell are you to tell professionals in their fields most respected how to do their job? 1:17 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129000886766886912 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams Where have I told anyone how to do their job? I explained, entirely accurately, why behaving like a media circus clown is (a) detrimental to the actual police case you want to play celebrity DNA expert to and (b) is offputtingly unprofessional. “Your honour, we had these 1:29 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129001587542831104 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others forces, and not least attempting to badger and provoke our clients into letting him have access to those samples... demonstrates pre-existing bias in the case and the authorities should not have indulged him. Move to reject the evidence...” 1:32 PM - 16 May 2019
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1129002210245980160 SheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams ''Your honour, we were grateful of Doctor Perlin's gracious offer BUT you see, here's the thing, it was already tested and kept under judicial secrecy so it was not needed at that time...'' The end. 1:34 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129003356985470976 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams What fucking relevance does that abstract nonsense have to anything? What are you contending? Why would a court ever have to hear about Dr Perlin’s (long may his ass be kissed by conspiracy theorists) “gracious” offer. No one is obliged to give an account as to why they don’t 1:39 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129003829071101952 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others need to take him up on it, or give him a reach-around in his media circus to say “we love you anyway...” His. Involvement. Was. Not. Solicited. Not. Welcome. Not. Warranted. Not. Helpful. Not. Professional. For them or for him. He should have recused himself from the circus. 1:41 PM - 16 May 2019
Why would Dr Perlin’s evidence not be admissible in a court?
Where has Mark Perlin pointed any guilt towards the McCanns? Or shown any bias against them?
As far as we know, Mark Perlin has offered his services to clarify what the existing samples present and a hypothesis is that the abductor’s DNA could be found there, and it that was the case, it would exonerate completely the McCanns.
The Rat, who is so correct on the dogs, is filled with fear when it comes to Mark Perlin. Why?
https://twitter.com/NewsAnagrams/status/1128921982978813952 Tina @NewsAnagrams Replying to @may_shazzy @xxSiLverdoexx The John Lowe/FFS report is a result of cover-up & protection of #mccanns 8:15 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128933382115581952 Shazzy May @may_shazzy Replying to @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx I suspect so. Dr Perlin can sort it out. He spoke respectfully of the Lowe Report. Technology in 2007 didnt have the ability to decipher DNA data. Dr Perlin is a true professional and a diplomatic man. #mccann 9:01 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128978754238373888 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx A “true professional” man would be speaking to the ACTUAL jurisdictional custodians of the evidence, professionally, and not through the media via a circus of expressly McCann Sympathist orchestration. A “true professional” would know precisely that offering consultative advice 12:01 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128979185882599424 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 2 others to an investigation to propose, at least, that an independent forensic laboratory of the investigation’s choice could be commissioned and directed by means of advice offered by himself. He ought to know that the non-jurisdictional non-custodians of the evidence have no authority 12:03 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128979632714387457 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 2 others to handover anything to him, and that professional investigators will be suspicious of any individual championing their own services and pushing for involvement on their own term, in a media circus, on a case and in a jurisdiction which is nothing to do with him. That’s “chain 12:04 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128980481482088448 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 2 others of custody” and the security of an ongoing investigation. It is impossible to verify that Mr Perlin is not a corrupt or compromised agent attempting to gain access to the evidential record, and as such a truly professional investigation will decide for themselves which forensic 12:08 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128987877226889218 Shazzy May @may_shazzy Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx Dr Perlin has an exemplary reputation and proven results in his field of DNA science. 12:37 PM - 16 May 2019
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128991691627745281 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx Dr Perlin has his own reputation, and it is whatever his paying clients pay for. This is science. There are no celebrities, no heroes, and someone is always driving the cutting edge with something newer and better. The whole notion that “Dr Perlin” should be known and admired 12:52 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1128992100857647105 SheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams He offered the tests 'for free' 🙄🙄 12:54 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128992647840968705 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams As do snake oil salesmen. If you had the faintest clue how serious the chain of custody is and how critical the integrity of the process in question is, you’d realise that the offer of a “free one” isn’t even remotely tempting to a serious police investigation. It wouldn’t, 12:56 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128993201833107456 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others most likely, be legal or admissible. It would be interpreted by a defence lawyer as a commercial compromise - a short cut or a less than impartial exercise prompted by cost saving... Let me repeat... IF - and it’s a big “IF” the samples need any more analysis than they’ve had 12:58 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128993672572428290 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others and that is to say that doing so might add something more meaningful to the possibility of prosecution, the PJ have already done it, or have a plan on where to do it. And “Perlin” is still a media circus provoking a professional investigation to pull media circus stunts and 1:00 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128993792093294597 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others compromise the integrity of their own investigation. 1:01 PM - 16 May 2019
https://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128840785024053248 Shazzy May @may_shazzy Replying to @Cerb32 @regretkay and 34 others And just quietly, at the same time, he [Mark Perlin] could test for anything else if he is given information as to what to look for, i.e. genetic disorders, syndromes and toxicology. Do you agree Cerb, that Dr Perlin has the goods to put this annoying case to rest? 2:53 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128921070403313664 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @may_shazzy @Cerb32 and 34 others No he doesn’t, and he shouldn’t either. Giving the process to some unverifiable yahoo who wants a media circus and to play the hero is not the way to get transparency OR move the issue on. Do you realise... It wouldn’t matter what Dr Mark Penguin discovered... You would never 8:12 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128921583328911360 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 35 others know what it is, if you did, it would never be admissable in court, and it would still be insufficient for a prosecution and thus would have to be withheld from release, while Portugal continue waiting to find a body, or get a testimony of illicit knowledge or an admission. 8:14 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/DuskatChristie/status/1129170384215896064 SunsetChristie @DuskatChristie Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 35 others Even if it wasn't admissible in court, because of the case being so high profile, Perlin's reputation is on the line & the whole world would be wanting to know the results. 12:42 AM - 17 May 2019
****** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129172611747975169 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @DuskatChristie @may_shazzy and 35 others And he couldn’t breathe a word, and it would be none of the public’s business, and a court injunction would be placed on it, and secrecy would be imposed and it would be a giant messy media circus that Perlin should have had the good sense to avoid instigating or perpetuating. 12:51 AM - 17 May 2019
Ummm can Ismail A Rat please explain why, after 12 years missing, millions of pounds spent and donated to find this little girl, that you are saying “it” would be none of the public’s business. Would “it” mean Perlin’s findings? So if you are saying a court injunction would be placed on the results (you sound very positive about that), then that tells me there is something very important to hide here. Something no-one else should know about. A secret so huge, that you mention “there would be a giant messy media circus that Perlin should have had the good sense to avoid instigating or perpetuating.”. However if an abduction had taken place, wouldn’t the parents want to know if the DNA was Madeleines, who else was in that Scenic and that Apt 5A – to identify anyone who was there – to bring them to justice ? The fact that there has been absolutely NO response to Dr Perlin, speaks volumes to me.
The Rat trying to join Mark Perlin’s offer with the Netflix fiasco:
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1120818611550072832 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @saunokonoko And given that the Netflix documentary was produced by McCann apologists who framed it to fake the appearance of an objective overview with token criticism and a few “WTF” moments, how can you state conclusively that the same apologists are not behind Perlin’s sudden Messiah-like 11:35 PM - 23 Apr 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1125126310311993346 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @beemmjay2011 @56cheffy @skymartinbrunt “Mark Perlin’s offer” is a non-starter. Credible police investigations don’t hand evidence over to media circus yahoo’s to “have a lash” at doing something with.... It would be inadmissable in court. It’s a side show. A media circus. By the Netflix documentary makers. 8:53 PM - 5 May 2019
I must admit to holding a suspicion of Mark Perlins offer....had visions of it being accepted then resulting in an unknown predators dna being discovered clearing the Macs.....
No way is a scientist like Perlin with a reputation to consider going to be party to faking results. His business depends on being able to withstand legal challenges from the lawyers of accused parties.
“https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16637380 Result of trial-Perlin’s evidence accepted but 1 defendant acquitted due to insufficient evidence to link him to the murder. Rat’s assertion that chain of custody would be broken if Perlin has access to the DNA is nonsense. All the prosecution would need is a statement from the police officer who delivered the samples to Perlin & a statement from Perlin’s office to say they were received.”
For McCann internet commenters to believe Dr Perlin's possible future retesting will solve the case, they also have to believe that the orchestrators of the hoax are stupid.
This is a promise, there will be no DNA or other evidence belonging to Madeleine from 5A or the hire car. Anyone who doesn't believe this doesn't understand the case or the talents of the people involved.
Getting overly exited regarding Dr Perlin's offer will only lead to disappointment, if he ever has the opportunity he will find nothing.
To believe otherwise proves people haven't the slightest clue about the complicated hoax which concealed the truth of the heartbreaking tragedy.
At the root of it is simplicity, everything else is mere window dressing and marketing, 'not bad for a bunch of amateurs' as John McCann so proudly asserted.
Only time well tell, so let's just wait and see...
We have no reason to not believe and trust in Mark Perlin’s professionalism and in the results he proposes to offer. That means that if the samples do end up in his hands, whatever results he produces are what they should be.
The only way to stop the truth of those results is not letting the samples reach his hands.
In one thing which is evident is that him helping in a case with a profile as high as Maddie’s, it would only help his reputation. In fact, the fact that he has offered his services, has meant that his name is now known and he hasn’t had to do anything besides standing firm with his offer.
One thing the Rat is wrong, at least according with what we have been told. Mark Perlin did not seek any media circus.
As far as we know the offer was made in 2018 and we only got to know about this offer this year. Accusing Mark Perlin of doing things via media circus, is simply false.
https://twitter.com/ciabaudo/status/1126714325463212033 Dame Alun Roberts @ciabaudo Replying to @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko Yes, Clement Freud is a very weird and sinister character. Interesting that he shared business interests with Mitchell. 6:03 AM - 10 May 2019 from Rietberg, Deutschland
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126792046373687296 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko Every angle must be ruled out, but to be fair nothing in the case speaks of “pedophiles” in the camp... The account does tell a story of very immature and selfish parenting and individuals, and inappropriate or unsavoury behaviour. But keep both feet on the ground... if the 11:12 AM - 10 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126792795547668480 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko statement and a blank file are all indicative of some grave and depraved crime being covered up, then why haven’t they been covered up or deleted entirely? A high level cover up doesn’t gamble on leaving unburned evidence behind in the ashes, or leaving a key to the secure lock 11:15 AM - 10 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126793417323945985 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko box lying around. Instead it appears more like the efforts to “overlook” have nothing to do with real criminals committing real crimes in rings or otherwise, but rather simply taking something that would prejudice an investigation unfairly, or even just create a media storm, out 11:17 AM - 10 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126793610635108352 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko of reach to those who would try to make a meal of it. It wouldn’t have been admissible in a prosecution anyway. 11:18 AM - 10 May 2019
***** (Tweet from mccannscamexpo account that has been suspended)
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126806264716111873 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko And that’s super for you. I simply prefer for what’s knowable and evidentially supportable. The Gaspar Statements cannot be tested. They are hearsay and one contradicts the gravity of the other, as might be expected if an over-sensitive wife “went off on one” over something 12:08 PM - 10 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126806740593463296 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko tasteless but misconstrued. As I said, they are materially worthless, cannot even be entered into record in a prosecution, but they are valuable as a demonstration of the reckless dynamic at work in that extended group. Yvonne Martin’s statement is even less compelling than the 12:10 PM - 10 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126807138641371136 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko “Smithman” testimony. A gut reaction. A feeling. A sense of deja vu. Trapped wind and a light head. Worthless. Yvonne Martin did not follow up her encounter and discussion with the PJ by coming back to them having trawled all her records and spoken to everyone she knew, and 12:12 PM - 10 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126807503067648001 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko proving that the individual in question was known and had form. Further still, your contention depends on the presumption that every police officer and prosecutor that had encountered the individual was part of a conspiracy of silence intended to not only distance him, but cover 12:13 PM - 10 May 2019
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126808338900107267 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko up his involvement in the matter. The case has lots of scope for mistakes, for “following orders”, for being gullible, for believing the best and then trying to save face... but with zero whistleblowers and zero evidence of anything but interference for political purpose, not 12:16 PM - 10 May 2019
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126808698872111104 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko only does the evidence not support a supreme master conspiracy, but if there had have been one, it wouldn’t have done such a piss poor job of leaving such a messy trail of fuel for the fire of suspicion. “Professionals” actually do the job. 12:18 PM - 10 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126809342420897794 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko The idea that the child was in a demised state in the apartment is not a risky one. Scotland Yard already had significant enough belief that they confirmed they were considering that conclusion. The dog alerts. The indicia of there having been a significantly destructive 12:20 PM - 10 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126810146003406850 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko cleaning regime in operation there, not to mention the bizarre behaviour going on during the initial hours, all cast the principals in that group in a light of suspicion, as does the pact, the torn up book, the washing of the soft toy, the upstairs neighbour’s testimony... 12:24 PM - 10 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126810506759634945 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko There’s what we know and can piece together with the evidence. And then there’s trivia, speculation and the wildest theories of all. 12:25 PM - 10 May 2019
https://twitter.com/stevano_b/status/1121546367636262912 Steve James /one @stevano_b Replying to @stevano_b @McCannCaseTweet and 2 others He’s [the Rat] fresh on Twitter & it’s a novelty for him.He’s practicing his big words & having mini orgasms I think 🤫😛 11:47 PM - 25 Apr 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121694103522115584 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @stevano_b @McCannCaseTweet @bullinamingvas1 See, that’s what I mean about “conspiracy theorists.” Can never deal wih simply what’s objectively relevant. Always need to draw reference to the misleading and trivial, to make fantastical assumptions about it, to weave it into an assumptive narrative, in order to turn it into 9:34 AM - 26 Apr 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121694570176307200 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others an ad hominem attack, or juvenile gossip, as their means of controlling the narrative, or holding court with their fellow delusionals, and maintaining a position in which they are held in high esteem, rather than being seen for being full of shit. 9:36 AM - 26 Apr 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121695596874801152 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others So... Am I fresh on Twitter? 9 years. So, no. Is it a novelty for me? Oh, Lord, no. I’ve been a seasoned veteran of issues far bigger than this for yeeeeears. And I’ve been a veteran of this tag for years too. Since before “Walkercan” had to keep changing socks. Since 9:40 AM - 26 Apr 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121696250389323776 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others before Brenda. Since being able to explain “The Last Photo” looking like a “Photoshop” to someone with fuck all experience in digital photo compositing could get you barred from the online stomping ground of certain sacred goats, or cows... Since before it became a qualification 9:43 AM - 26 Apr 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121696898027544576 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others for holding an opinion on this case that one had to accept “swinging” as the sole raison d’etre for this resort to exist. And really, getting your rocks off to any aspect of this case is a pretty disturbing thing. Picturing someone getting their rocks off to any aspect of this 9:45 AM - 26 Apr 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121697173412954112 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others case as an infantile attempt at an ad hominem is just creepy. 9:47 AM - 26 Apr 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121697464002797574 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others “Practicing my big words.” Oh, I’d say I’m well practiced already, Chuckles. Putting them to good use now. Does it get you rattled, sunshine? 9:48 AM - 26 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128719046919245824 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others You're very naive. Dogs operate at the level of 3 year olds and regard searches as a game with hopefully a reward at the end of it. They are perfectly capable of giving a false alert if they have had enough of the game: Eddie alerting to the clothes for example. #mccann 6:49 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128768971396849673 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others No, EVRD’s do not give “false alerts” if they “tire of the game.” To do such would denote a calculated choice on the part of the dog, and an act of deliberate fraud. They don’t demonstrate either. 10:07 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128780518940643329 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others Like I said, you've very naive about how dogs behave. They operate at the same level as 3 or 4 year old children. #mccann 10:53 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128790080271921154 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others They’re utterly fucking incomparable. 11:31 PM - 15 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/MrDelorean2/status/1128925753305903104 Mr Delorean @MrDelorean2 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 34 others I suggest you go and share that insight with the American Psychological Association, or any of the other scientific bodies that have made that comparison then.🙄 #mccann https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025241.htm 8:30 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128929338118856704 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @MrDelorean2 @Cerb32 and 34 others I’ll happily do that and I’m sure I’m not alone. And you’re the proof of why this incomparable comparison is so detrimental. You’ve used the claim to discredit EVRD and detection dogs as being of diminished intelligence and therefore untrustworthy, professionally problematic 8:45 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128930582052909056 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others creatures. The author is using it as an expression of how much more intelligent than previously thought dogs actually are. Two polar opposite conclusions from the same problematic statement. Not to mention the fact that in the years since the APA gave a hearing to this 8:49 AM - 16 May 2019
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128931421341573120 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others anthropomorphisation exercise, more specialist sniffer dogs are deployed, more agencies use and invest heavily in them, more deployments as front line detection methods in mission-critical environments, increasing proof of ability, intensified training to push into new fields, 8:53 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128932145622331392 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others increased dependence. So either the research in question is flawed or misleading, or it doesn’t mean what you imply it means and in fact actually affirms the abilities of the dogs - but either way, it seems no one is demonstrating anything except increasing dependence on the 8:56 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128932664306819074 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others efficacy of the dogs. In the meanwhile I’ll await one of two justifications of your attempted use of this argument... You can show me how the blind now no longer cross the road at the prompt of their sight dog due to grave fears over the predilection of these fractious 8:58 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128933236527292416 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others creatures for playing tricksy and engaging in scampery in order to satisfy their boredom with following routine... Or you can show me the 2-3 year old human bomb detectors currently working the Queen’s security detail. See, had I been in the debate, and I’m sure someone else 9:00 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128934307626725376 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others has done it, I would have suggested that drawing comparisons between infants and dogs was unhelpful, and noted that the ability of dogs to maintain trained professional function for prolonged periods placed them far beyond 2-3 year old humans. But you can always ask the military 9:04 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128934527659859968 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others dog handlers if they wouldn’t be better with a couple of toddlers... 9:05 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128963827268313088 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 34 others Dogs can do many things better than 3 year old children. "During play, dogs are capable of deliberately trying to deceive other dogs and people in order to get rewards. And they are nearly as successful in deceiving humans as humans are in deceiving dogs." #mccann https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6rinH0XsAYuXOG.jpg 11:02 AM - 16 May 2019
[Picture attached says: “Science News from research organizations Dogs' Intelligence On Par With Two-year-old Human, Canine Researcher Says Date: August 10, 2009 Source: American Psychological Association Summary: Although you wouldn't want one to balance your checkbook, dogs can count. They can also understand more than 150 words, and intentionally deceive other dogs and people to get treats, according to a psychologist and leading canine researcher.”]
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128973124123451393 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @MrDelorean2 and 34 others And that’s precisely where the science swerves at a 90 degree tangent to the bizarre pseudo-science of animalxpsychology, because “deceit” is a human trait as we understand it, involving conscience, rationale and decision-making calculations. What the human might perceive as 11:39 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128974296053899264 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others interwebs and now wields said piece in complete ignorance of the rest of the available data. The article, after all, represents nothing more than a singular researcher’s opinion piece. It fails to cite the most critical of requirements for “scientific research.” Specifics. 11:43 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Esjabe1/status/1129012120752939011 💙 єѕנαвє 💛 @Esjabe1 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 34 others Specifics are: Dogs don’t recognize deceit as such, per se, but rather a means to an end, a solution to a problem, or how to get a treat/reward. ABC...123 2:14 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129016562340552704 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Esjabe1 @Cerb32 and 34 others Right... So... Martin Grime rewards the dog in training if they affirm the cadaver scent in the right location... And then he rewards the dog if they “make a false alert.” So Martin Grime is stupid... And the dogs alert arbitrarily... And get rewarded for error... And so 2:31 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129016721640218624 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 35 others pretend to alert... to get a treat... Why aren’t they alerting far more regularly then? 2:32 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129017199014883328 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 35 others And when is a professional agency going to recognise the fatal multi million dollar flaw in this methodology, that the dogs just alert for treats, like popping money in a candy dispenser...? 2:34 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129017508864958464 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 35 others And is it proven that all dogs do this? Even trained sniffer dogs? Where is the scientific methodology to establish this documented and tested? 2:35 PM - 16 May 2019
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129110733495644160 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 34 others Grime said that most false positives are due to handler cueing. That's why search protocols are put in place, which Grime ignored. Dogs read our body language extremely well. IMO, the alerts to #mccann clothes were false positives in response to subconscious cues from Grime. 8:45 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/maxine68711804/status/1129113384794902528 ✂️S N I P S ✂️ @maxine68711804 Replying to @Cerb32 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others Let me get this straight - you think that all of Eddies cadaver alerts were false ? All of them ? All in the car all in kates clothes and all in the apartment . So you are saying Eddie systematically failed every time ? Is that what you are trying to sell me ? 8:56 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129311864876425216 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @maxine68711804 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others Eddie alert to microscopic traces of cellular material in 5A - true. Eddie non specific alert to wardrobe in bedroom - true but nobody knows what he was alerting to. That doesn't stop anti #mccann s speculating. Eddie alerts to clothes and Cuddle Cat - false. 10:05 AM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129330820089618433 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @maxine68711804 and 34 others What’s a “non specific” alert to a wardrobe in a bedroom? Sounds fairly specific to me. “Wardrobe” presumably doesn’t mean “somewhere in the room” does it? Are you suggesting the cadaver that had obviously been in the cupboard at some time prior to the McCann’s arrival was at 11:20 AM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129330973294903296 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others a height and Eddie failed to flap his ears fast enough to hover right at that point? 11:21 AM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129331479786377216 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others Let’s establish somehing, because I don’t like all the implications that I’m an “anti McCann” and stupid to boot... The dog is a cadaver detection EVRD. It doesn’t alert to nothing. It alerts to presence of cadaver residue. Not something blown in the wind, but actual particles 11:23 AM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129332715029975042 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others from oily secretion bonded to surfaces. And I honestly don’t give a toss about who gets convicted for what. But what I want to know is which Fokkers have been making or taking dead bodies with them on holiday on the Algarve and how is no one noticing? Airport security don’t 11:27 AM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129332715029975042 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @maxine68711804 and 32 others Have you read Grime's report to the PJ? Beginning to think you're idle, Rat 👿. There were no oily secretions in the wardrobe. An unknown odour pooled in the bedroom due to air movements in the apartment. I have noticed the same when slaughtering piglets in my kitchen. #mccann 11:43 AM - 17 May 2019
“The dog is a cadaver detection EVRD. It doesn’t alert to nothing. It alerts to presence of cadaver residue. Not something blown in the wind, but actual particles from oily secretion bonded to surfaces”.
Oh, how some must be feeling like fools. If they aren’t then it only shows they are bigger fools than the Rat has shown them to be.
But we know they are feeling the fools they are.
To our recent readers, who may not be understanding the magnitude of what the Rat has said above, the blog has always defended that the cadaver scent that the EVRD dogs alerts to comes from an emitting source left in place by the corpse, or as the Rat puts it “actual particles from oily secretion bonded to surfaces”, and so it determines the location of where the body has been as the EVRD dog “alerts to presence of cadaver residue”.
For the defending the above, the blog has been viciously attacked by our opponents (and we’re not talking about pros like Cerb, who we have never interacted with) who have defended that the body leaves no such trace and that the cadaver scent is just gas released by the body directly into the air while in place – they clearly state there is no oily secretion – and when the body is taken away, the only “residue” it leaves are the airborne molecules of said scent hanging in the air, “something blown in the wind”.
What a precious moment. What a precious, precious moment.
It covers the main events. We will bring it over to blog soon, but as we said, we don’t want to take the pressure off the Rat and his mateys.
We’ll however bring over the first 2 paragraphs of the article:
“It's remarkable to think that a double PhD holder quietly living in Pittsburgh, USA, a man who has never set foot in Portugal, could be the one capable of triggering the biggest breakthrough in the Madeleine McCann cold case in a decade.
What's maybe even more remarkable is that the UK's largest police force appear disinterested in allowing world-leading DNA expert Dr Mark Perlin to intervene in the Madeleine mystery.”
And now the Rat’s take on Mark Perlin’s offer:
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130040025008234496 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @andyLUHGNW3427 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others Let’s attempt an exercise... Why would the PJ - who have the ONLY authority and jurisdiction in the ongoing case - EVER find it necessary or even helpful to take up Perlin’s astonishing sideshow? 10:18 AM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/andyLUHGNW3427/status/1130040792528162816 andy @andyLUHGNW3427 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others Yes why wouldn't they? 10:21 AM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130056298958073862 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @andyLUHGNW3427 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others Why wouldn’t they? Because 1. The results would be argued straight out of ever being admissable in court. Perlin’s inexplicable enthusiasm for involvement represents a media show and a prejudicial position. 2. Doing so would be on the demands of the baying public, and the baying 11:23 AM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130056858285293570 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others public can’t have the results, so they’ll keep baying. 3. If someone offers the service, for free, as an act of wanting involvement, the process isn’t transparent or professional. Perlin isn’t “the best” and he isn’t “the only” not is he local to the PJ. 4. You’re assuming the 11:25 AM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130057250687651841 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others samples aren’t retested already by a European lab. 5. Why would you ever hear about the results if they had been? 6. Anything extraordinarily public tagged on to the investigation is a circus... not discreet, not professional and not secret, therefore not able to be the basis of 11:26 AM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130057301501652992 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others a prosecution. 11:27 AM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1130061260928757761 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 33 others Well argued, Rat 👿. #mccann 11:42 AM - 19 May 2019
*****
We guess people on Twitter will just have to put up with the Rat as we have had to for so many years up to now…
Hello Textusa, I'm somewhat confused as to a particular aspect of the case, and if you would kindly shed some light I will highly appreciate it. If you don't mind, why would the British contingent be so supportive of the McCanns and their abduction narrative, yet Martin Grime and Mark Harrison considered to be impartial?
Are you absolutely sure both of the above-mentioned aren't part of the abduction hoax? Why would two genuine and trustworthy people be allowed to slip through the net?
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, not to me at least, for such a British-led and controlled situation it simply doesn't jibe.
https://twitter.com/andyLUHGNW3427/status/1130057285689065472 andy @andyLUHGNW3427 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others How could they [Mark Perlin’s results] be argued out of court? The first results were apparently inconclusive becasue they couldn't fully determine the results, with new technology it's now possible. Or do we have to stick to inconclusive results from a testing lab that had a conflict of interest? 11:27 AM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130151175372906496 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @andyLUHGNW3427 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others “We” don’t have to stick to anything. And the Lowe/FSS report, in the right hands, says far more than the use of the word “inconclusive” has been used to imply. The document may address tests which are “inconclusive” but “conclusiveness” isn’t the only evidence... Remember, 5:40 PM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130152054595497984 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others that these are the same voices that tell you what you can infer from dog alerts, yet the dog alerts have not been tossed on a scrap heap. Also never forget that this inadequacy of evidence was not created by PJ ineptitude - it was created by someone thoroughly cleaning the crime 5:43 PM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130162818718814210 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others scene. Anything detected by blood dog is blood. Anything detected by cadaver dog is localised in the same place as a body has been present. That might not be conclusive... but it is real. When we say “unsolved” we’re playing a waiting game for further evidence or a new technique 6:26 PM - 19 May 2019
*****
Brilliant, simply brilliant: “Anything detected by blood dog is blood. Anything detected by cadaver dog is localised in the same place as a body has been present. That might not be conclusive... but it is real”
The Rat then goes on to invent reasons why Mark Perlin’s results but then he is being his old self: what I say is, regardless of reality because I said it was, and I said it with such a certainty that no one dare question what I say it was just because I said it was.
The Rat, to prove his point, all he has to do is to show a case where a scientific report was rejected by a Portuguese court because it was too involved in a “media circus”.
If he doesn’t, he is just, however strongly, however adamantly, expressing a wishful thinking.
Obviously, Mark Perlin’s results would be accepted in court.
“I see the Rat is still insisting that any evidence from Perlin world be ruled inadmissible. Firstly he/she said it was because of chain of custody, now he seems to be suggesting it’s because Perlin is trying to ‘spike the process’ whatever that means. Dr. Perlin has had his evidence accepted by a British court, so why is the Rat so adamant that it wouldn’t be accepted in this case?”
https://twitter.com/all_i_wont/status/1130068968146898945 Marisco @all_i_wont Replying to @andyLUHGNW3427 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others Bang on, particularly at a lab which has been discredited many times. Amaral said the Portuguese were too trusting of the British. Anyway, I am certain that the test won't show that it is not her DNA - 15/20 is enough to convict in some places. 12:13 PM - 19 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130168542219952129 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @all_i_wont @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others Precisely... 15/20 is enough to convict in some places. But would 20/20 be enough to convict in Portugal? Portuguese law is hamstrung by having no principal crime to charge with... They have no body. They have no witnesses to a body. Does it really matter what DNA is 6:49 PM - 19 May 2019
*****
The Rat and his wishful thinking.
According, to the Rat the result would come back and it would be confirmed that it was Maddie’s DNA in the Scenic but because there was no body and no witnesses to a body, the Portuguese would just say, sorry, we can’t do anything about it.
We apologise to our readers for persisting in showing how the Rat is defending to the hilt the position the blog has defended for years on the EVRD dog and the cadaver scent in the Maddie case – whilst being viciously attacked and insulted for having done so – but we think that after this the time has come for us to ask a question:
https://twitter.com/Millsyj73/status/1128946364195459072 Jason mills 🦊 💙 @Millsyj73 Replying to @Esjabe1 @IsmailARat5 and 47 others It’s ok. Idiots of #MASBO claim that the dogs gave false alerts to every single alert they made on the #mccann case. SEVENTEEN was it? Hmmm yeah all wrong. Apparently 😂😂😂😂😂🙈 9:52 AM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Esjabe1/status/1129025583873175555 💙 єѕנαвє 💛 @Esjabe1 FollowFollow @Esjabe1 More Replying to @Millsyj73 @IsmailARat5 and 47 others Not “the dogs”, the perception that all of Eddie’s alerts were “cadaver” when he also alerted to dried blood from living humans. The unsupported alerts, i.e., KM’s clothes & Cuddle Cat (all retuned immediately), we’re false alerts & likely the presence of menstrual blood scent. 3:07 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129034292670156801 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Esjabe1 @Millsyj73 and 47 others How can you prove he was “alerting to dried blood from living humans” and not trace “cadaver” compounds? Which “living humans” and where? And if he alerts so indiscriminately to dried blood from living humans, why is he deployed as a cadaver dog? Also, are you contending that 3:42 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129034660154159112 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others in the whole of the Ocean Club there were no other traces of dried blood from living humans? No... say... mosquito bites? Grazes from rock climbing? Nothing else for Eddie to alert to? 3:43 PM - 16 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129103835627233281 Cerb32 @Cerb32 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 47 others Grime states quite clearly that Eddie could alert to dried blood from a live human being #mccann https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6th80BWkAE5Vbk.jpg 8:18 PM - 16 May 2019 [Picture attached to the tweet says:
“…made by the dog. ‘The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or also from a cadaver’ The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for ‘live’ human odours; no trained dog will recognise the smell of fresh blood’. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.”]
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129381523818516480 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @Cerb32 @Esjabe1 and 47 others No, actually. That’s not what he said. He clearly addresses generalisms about how detection dogs are trained in that area of specialisation, and what detection dogs are able to detect as a result of that training. “No trained dog will...” ...alert to fresh blood because all 2:41 PM - 17 May 2019
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129382154771861505 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 48 others their training is geared to dried blood and, as appropriate and relevant, a specialisation - in “Eddie’s” case, his deployment indicates his specialisation is cadaver compound detection. Are you suggesting that the dogs are deployed so arbitrarily that the handler isn’t ever 2:44 PM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129382718586916867 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 48 others sure what the dog will tune into on any given day which in turn fatally handicaps the investigation using the dog as what you’re saying is that the dog in question might sit and bark at a blood soaked plaster lying three inches below the soil, that in turn is six feet above a 2:46 PM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129383191863799808 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 48 others severed human head, which never gets unearthed because the handler thinks “oh shit... he’s in bloody plaster mode again... I hope he doesn’t embarrass me with a used tampon again...” Doesn’t seem right, does it. Scientific, legally grave, court admitted methodology... 2:48 PM - 17 May 2019
***** https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129384038454714369 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 48 others No, definitely the dogs are trained far more specifically than that. 2:51 PM - 17 May 2019
Why haven’t Mr Thompson and Sade Anslow engaged with the Rat on this? He is saying what we have said, isn’t he?
When we said what the Rat is now saying, both jumped in very quickly – one of them even wrote a blog post “explaining” how wrong we were – but the Rat goes on days on end about it and from them we have only had an absolute and total silence. Why?
From unpublished comments we have received, Mr Thompson has shown he’s fully aware of what the Rat is saying.
And the Rat is exactly where they complain we are not: on Twitter!
Shouldn’t they have jumped at this opportunity to prove all their enormous knowledge about the dogs?
Why their deafening silence? Why aren’t they challenging the Rat?
Are they recognising the Rat is right on this? Are they recognising they were wrong and we were right?
By the way, has anyone seen JBLittlemore? We’re just asking because he was, together with Mr Thompson and Nick Townsend (remember him?) one of the Twitter Wonder Trio on the dogs about a year ago!
Perhaps JBLittlemore is writing up the scripts for the Rat?? Notice how they seem to be all scissors and paste - well prepared and rehearsed. All tweeted to himself, as if to hermetically seal-off major interruptions or disagreements. Plenty of room for slipping in a counter-narrative. Those engaged seem to be people that don't frequent the McCann tag regularly; perhaps they've been gathered or hand-picked from somewhere? I'm sure Rat and friends were hoping that no one would notice. But that didn't work, did it?
Comments that we have received/seen from Mr Thompson on this subject, in chronological order.
On NT’s blog:
“Pseudo Nym20 May 2019 at 00:25 Could I leave this latest comment from textusa here please, matey? The lunatic is begging for my attention. I'll quote his parts and interject with my thoughts.
"And the question we want to ask is this:
Why haven’t Mr Thompson and Sade Anslow engaged with the Rat on this? He is saying what we have said, isn’t he?"
The internet is a big place, does he seriously expect me to challenge everyone who is wrong about the dogs?
"When we said what the Rat is now saying, both jumped in very quickly – one of them even wrote a blog post “explaining” how wrong we were – but the Rat goes on days on end about it and from them we have only had an absolute and total silence. Why?"
Because textusa lifted my tweet thinking he could make a fool of me. When I replied I showed the useless blogger up for having absolutely no knowledge of the dogs and proved what I was saying based upon fact.
"From unpublished comments we have received, Mr Thompson has shown he’s fully aware of what the Rat is saying."
Textusa has received no comments from me with regards to this latest account they're obsessing over.
"And the Rat is exactly where they complain we are not: on Twitter!"
Nobody complains Swingstein is not on Twitter. I've stated they're a coward for hiding behind their blog, editing or not publishing replies to their questions.
"Shouldn’t they have jumped at this opportunity to prove all their enormous knowledge about the dogs?"
It's one person, I have a life, dickface should get one as well.
"Why their deafening silence? Why aren’t they challenging the Rat?"
At this point textusa is rolling around in a nappy, banging their fists on the floor and wailing.
"Are they recognising the Rat is right on this? Are they recognising they were wrong and we were right?"
Nope, textusa is wrong about the dogs. Finding an account that is also wrong doesn't make textusa right.
"By the way, has anyone seen JBLittlemore? We’re just asking because he was, together with Mr Thompson and Nick Townsend (remember him?) one of the Twitter Wonder Trio on the dogs about a year ago!" JBL is a busy person. By busy I don't mean sat in a chair, stalking people, obsessing over them and inventing weird stories about Marks and Spencer cards and secret agents. Here's a link to my blog that shows textusa to be absolutely wrong about Eddie and Keela. If this Rat person agrees with textusa, then he/she is wrong as well.
(censored, as we refuse to promote filth in the blog)”
In our blog:
“Pseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "The protection of the McCanns by José António Sara...":
You have received no comments from me regarding this latest Twitter account you're banging on about. Stop lying.
Do you think I spend my time correcting everyone on Twitter? I've said my piece and proved you to be wrong. Quoting some random on Twitter will not make you right.
Posted by Pseudo Nym to Textusa at 19 May 2019, 23:33:00”
And:
“Pseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "The protection of the McCanns by José António Sara...":
Isn't it strange how you never publish my actual comments, but someone comments from an anonymous account and you'll fire the comment up and lie about it being me. You're such a dirty little fraud.
Posted by Pseudo Nym to Textusa at 20 May 2019, 11:32:00”
***** Mr Thompson,
We have withheld your comments because we wanted to confirm how scared you are in facing the Rat on Twitter.
Your replies published above confirm you having been given a heads up and your silence on Twitter shows you ran from defending your position on the EVRD dog on your preferred platform, Twitter.
The Rat has not seen any of his tweets being challenged by you.
We wrote a comment and you felt we deserved an entire post (oddly not promoted on Justice) and the Rat has by now written thousands of words on the subject and you (and Sade) remain silent.
A completely different attitude from the one you had when Nick Townsend appeared last year also on the topic of the dogs. Then, you didn’t hesitate for a minute.
Also, you don’t hesitate for a minute to jump in on those who agree with us, so why not jump on the Rat as he agrees with us on the EVRD dog and the cadaver residues, both which you have shown to strongly disagree with?
You say you have no time, yet you have time to go hide behind NotTextusa’s skirts. Why didn’t you take the issue to Twitter for all and the Rat to read, as it would take you the exact same time?
Meanwhile you also have had the time to tweet all about Gamble and Nessling’s paedophilia.
By the way, we are very curious about what NotTextusa’s reaction will be to your comment in his blog.
Will he ignore you and the Rat? Will he focus his reply solely on us and ignore the Rat? Will he give an opinion on the Rat? If he does, we are very curious about what he will have to say… you have put NotTextusa in a very difficult position, you have put him in a no-win situation, whatever he does (or has done, we don’t know).
Why don’t you on Twitter give the Rat a link to your post where you say you have proved us wrong and let him read and say whatever the Rat feels he has to say about it? Let that post undergo his scrutiny. How many seconds of your time would that take away from you? Why are you so scared of the Rat?
If you argue that you don’t go on Twitter against the Rat because Cerb has done all the talking for you, then we have nothing to say. It is true that your position on the EVRD dog alerts is totally in synch with Cerb, the Frog and Esjabe, all known and undisguised pros.
Of course, it was noted how soft you went against the Rat in your comment: “Nope, textusa is wrong about the dogs. Finding an account that is also wrong doesn't make textusa right” and “The internet is a big place, does he [Textusa] seriously expect me to challenge everyone who is wrong about the dogs?”. Poor Nick Townsend for having the bad luck to have caught you in the mood to challenge that day, weeks and months…
You only mention the Rat’s name at the end of you comment on NotTextusa but “en-passant”: “If this Rat person agrees with textusa, then he/she is wrong as well.”
Are you that scared of the Rat? Why?
Everyone who has accompanied the blog in the past year has read you demanding we go on Twitter countless times. You denying this just exposed your usual tactic of producing soundbites, of saying what you think best suits you at a certain moment regardless of being an evident and shameless lie. You’ve been caught so many times that it has become boring.
About you not having time, everyone knows that this is your life. It’s not us saying so, it was your friend who said it publicly and also spoke of knowing all your dirty little secrets. By coincidence, you went silent (and blocked her) on that conversation after that remark, didn’t you?
Interesting to see that you know exactly how busy JBLittlemore is.
We see that you continue to treat Textusa as a man and that you still haven’t doxxed your friends who pretend to be of the gender they are not.
Is Trish Hills Allen really a woman or is he a man pretending to be a woman? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Trish Hills Allen is really a woman”.
Is Paul Rees really a man, or is she a woman pretending to be a man? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Paul Rees is really a man”.
Is Kirstie Murray really a woman or is he a man pretending to be a woman? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Kirstie Murray is really a woman”.
Is Natalie Charlesworth really a woman or is he a man pretending to be a woman? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Natalie Charlesworth is really a woman”.
Is Netty Estelle really a woman or is he a man pretending to be a woman? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Netty Estelle is really a woman”.
Are you really a man, or are you a woman pretending to be a man? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “I’m really a man”.
If you do have the shamelessness – wouldn’t surprise us at all – to say “Trish Hills Allen is really a woman, Paul Rees is really a man, Kirstie Murray is really a woman, Natalie Charlesworth is really a woman, Netty Estelle is really a woman and I’m really a man” we would know you would be lying twice.
And it wouldn’t only be us, as you well know. What we believe would surprise you would be if you knew from where we know what we know. No, it wouldn’t be the apparently obvious answers. Those too, of course.
You made “gender-honesty” an issue. If it wasn’t for you, your friends could have continued to pretend to be REAL people who they aren’t and we couldn’t care less. In fact, we don’t care an iota. We only care that you are coherent and not the hypocrite you are.
Rest assured that we will not rest until you doxx who you must doxx, allowing your conscience to finally find some peace on this subject.
Want the names again? Here they are: Trish Hills Allen, Paul Rees, Kirstie Murray, Natalie Charlesworth, Netty Estelle and yourself.
How many times do you want us to repeat these names?
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1130522856293634049 00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx I'm still sitting here like this 🤨a minute trying to figure it out, rat is Walker but agrees with T and that's good and why haven't Ben and I challenged rat? Is that about it? Fuck knows. 6:17 PM - 20 May 2019
*****
Yes, why haven’t you challenged the Rat, as he is clearly saying that Eddie signalled cadaver scent in the Scenic?
(as you know, do not reply here because it won’t be published. Still waiting for a mail so we can send you what you wrote in your Do Not Publish comment and you read it again)
Jim Gamble was on Twitter yesterday interacting with McCann abduction doubters including Pat Brown. His tweets have since disappeared, what a big surprise.
If anybody knows the truth of whatever happened to Madeleine outside the immediate circle of ham actors, it's him IMO.
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The protection of the McCanns by José António Sara...":
Textusa, I’m really confused. I really don’t know – (censored) goes against what the rat says.....his style is like (censored) but his content isn’t!!
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 May 2019, 19:33:00”
*****
Reason for censoring: we prefer to keep the Rat as the Rat, however obvious who the Rat is.
Anonymous,
We fully understand the confusion and will hopefully answer in more detail tomorrow if time allows it.
But for now, imagine that you have seen for years a bird that looks like a duck, has gold, white and green feathers and walks like a duck.
What you have seen up to now is that duck bark. It didn’t make any sense, in fact it made the whole scene simply absurd.
What you are now witnessing is the same bird, one that looks like a duck, has gold, white and green feathers and walks like a duck but this time it quacks like a duck.
There’s no question whatsoever that it’s the same duck, one that looks like a duck, has gold, white and green feathers and walks like a duck, so the only the only question that you have to ask yourself is why is that duck quacking now when it has barked for years.
That is what we hope to answer tomorrow, but we can now say that all is very easy to understand if one realises that the bird, the one that looks like a duck, has gold, white and green feathers and walks like a duck and is now ONLY making a real effort to sound like a duck on the dogs.
On all other subjects of the case – this can be seen clearly when it comes to Mark Perlin – that same duck continues to bark, and continues to be absurd.
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130165487097266177 Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5 Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others Now... Involve Perlin, and those results will not get inside a court. They will be ruled inadmissable. What he’s doing is spiking the process. The PJ are wise to not even engage him. The crafty lawyers for defence will pick everything apart. 6:37 PM - 19 May 2019
*****
We recommend that the Rat, the barking duck when it comes to Perlin, reads the following (our caps):
“Scientific Reliability Scientific evidence must be sufficiently reliable for it to be admissible in court of law. Yet laboratory signals such as PCR-amplified DNA have natural variation. Mixtures and small DNA amounts exhibit even more pattern fluctuation. How can solid results be derived from inconstant data? A first application of Bayes rule lets us infer genotypes solely from the data, representing genetic uncertainty with allele pair probability. A second Bayesian turn with the LR then com-pares these probabilistic genotypes with reference and population genotypes to calculate the change in identification information. Bayes done twice (drawing on considerable computing power) allows a thorough examination of STR data, and an objective determination of match strength. A DNA match is expressed in a single statistic, the LR, whose logarithm (powers of 10) is a standard measure of information. A positive log(LR) supports inclusion, a negative value suggests exclusion, while numbers around zero are inconclusive. The reliability of a scientific process is assessed through validation. With DNA mixtures, we want an interpretation method to be sensitive (include the contributors), specific (exclude non-contributors) and reproducible. Validation studies can measure these axes of DNA mixture information through log(LR) values calculated from genotype comparisons. Cybergenetics and other groups have conducted many TrueAllele validation studies on DNA mixture interpretation. Two published peer-reviewed studies used DNA samples of known composition, while two other journal papers assessed casework items and compared with manual review. These studies have established that the system is sensitive (match statistics are a million times higher than some threshold methods), specific (false matches are rejected by factors of a billion billion) and reproducible.
Court Appearances TrueAllele Casework was admitted into evidence in three homicide cases where there were defense challenges, ONE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM and two in the United States. In a US case, the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme courts upheld the conviction and TrueAllele’s reliability, establishing a statewide precedent. The system was not admitted in a 2010 UK arson retrial where the judge had wanted more validation, although he “did not give a reasoned judgment explaining his decision.” More TrueAllele validation studies were done, with regulatory approval granted by the New York State Commission on Forensic Science. A year and a half later, a voir dire was held in the Northern Ireland Massereene Bar-racks attack trial. In his ruling, the Honourable Mr. Justice Hart was satisfied that the system could be “regarded as being reliable and accepted” and admitted TrueAllele into evidence. TrueAllele results have been reported in over a hundred criminal cases, most often for the prosecution. TrueAllele experts have testified in fifteen criminal trials, for offenses including murder, rape, child abduction, child molestation, bank robbery and terror. The system can separate out genotypes from mixtures of relatives. TrueAllele has helped lawyers defend innocent clients. The police use this computer interpretation to sharpen their DNA evidence, whether they need a more informative match statistic for a suspect in a crime, or they want to conduct a more effective DNA database search to solve a cold case.
Genotype Database The original UK vision was to use the NDNAD to prevent crime through cold case DNA match by retiring criminals early in their careers. But DNA mixtures, and other challenging evidence, have dimmed the success of that mission. The NDNAD can only store simple single-source genotypes, with allowance for uncertain alleles. This late 20th century database was designed for pristine evidence and reference samples. The NDNAD cannot effectively represent today’s DNA mixtures, and so most of that hard-won taxpayer-funded evidence is not used for crime prevention. A TrueAllele genotype database could help fulfill the original NDNDA goal. The system can resolve all DNA evidence, regardless of complexity or number of contributors, into its constituent genotypes. All genotypes can be uploaded to a national TrueAllele database. The high specificity of TrueAllele’s mathematical LR database match greatly reduces false hits. Its high sensitivity finds more cold hits that solve (and ultimately prevent) crime more effectively than existing government technology. A public-private partnership could use all of Britain’s DNA evidence in a national genotype database that would better prevent needless victimization.
Conclusion DNA identifi cation began in the United Kingdom. For over two hundred years, Britain has been innovating the sci-ence that backs this forensic gold standard. By using only the most accurate interpretation methods, a nation can keep its wealth of DNA evidence from transmuting into fool’s gold. Cybergenetics pioneering TrueAllele technology is an ac-cepted part of the DNA landscape. The FSS and Cellmark Forensic Services have genotyped millions of CJ sam-ples through TrueAllele computers. The Casework sys-tem has interpreted DNA evidence in UK criminal cases, with expert testimony given on reported matches. TrueAl-lele can help burnish the DNA gold standard, mathemati-cally preserving DNA evidence to fi nd the guilty, free the innocent and make the world a safer place. by Mark W. Perlin
*****
What the paper from 2013 states, which will alarm the Rat and all the hoax apologists about their car boot samples excuses being A’s sandals or any other explanation of nappies:
“The system can separate out genotypes from mixtures of relatives”
“The system can resolve all DNA evidence, regardless of complexity or number of contributors, into its constituent genotypes”
But it was only after 2009 that the system was ready to be used on criminal DNA evidence.
It seems that 2009 was the year Perlin’s methods could be used for criminal investigations and the FSS were well aware of his methods, as they were using TrueAllele themselves. So they could have had the samples re-tested.
Mark Perlin knew that in 2007 FSS samples could not be unravelled as in the quotes above, but it can be now!
The final outcome of the UK case indicated a need not just to determine whose DNA was found but also how it got there.
If Maddie’s DNA could be shown to be in the apartment and the car, it would take the case to another level and for Mark Perlin and ultimately the court, to determine how it got there.
Mark Perlin has stated he can determine if DNA was transferred, so we presume science has moved on since 2011.
Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1128005679439065088
ReplyDelete⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @Anvil161Anvil16 @PollyGraph69
You of all people should know that wasn't a criminal case. It was to ascertain if Goncalo Amaral had a right to voice his opinion. God knows, textusa banged on about it not being a libel trial enough.
7:34 pm - 13 May 2019
*****
Oh, look who is now trying to push the idea that the damages trial was a libel trial? Mr Thompson.
Let’s overlook the fact that Gonçalo Amaral felt the need to come out himself and publish a statement saying that it was a damages trial and not a libel one. Again, Mr Thompson disrespects Gonçalo Amaral.
But the fact that it wasn’t a libel trial, but a damages one, helps explain the PROVEN/NOT PROVEN facts determined by the Portuguese Justice system, as well as it also explains why the judge cut off Gerry’s words when he tried to bring the dogs up in court.
We will explain soon.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2014/07/no-longer-libel-so-dont-call-it-libel.html
DeleteThe translation of Mr Amaral's message:
Deletehttp://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-message-from-goncalo-amaral_21.html
Dear friends,
Upon reading the news about the most recent trial session, I am certain that the vast majority of journalists doesn’t know what is being discussed in court, and have not informed correctly.
Let us be clear. What is at stake is to find out:
- Whether the writing of my book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” was a lawful or unlawful action;
- Whether or not the plaintiffs have suffered damages and whether or not there are facts to prove it;
- Whether or not it is possible to establish a causal nexus between the book and such damages.
This is what is at stake.
Concerning the book’s lawfulness, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appellate Court’s decision within the injunction that preceded the current action. The truth is that for the Appellate Court’s Illustrious Judges, as can be concluded from that decision, the lawfulness of the book’s publication is indisputable.
With proof of the lawfulness of the book, the matter should rest here, without the need to investigate anything further, namely concerning the damages that the plaintiffs complain about.
Nonetheless, we should note that even if the lawfulness may still be at stake, there is still the need to establish a causal nexus between the publication and the damages that the plaintiffs complain about, such as deep depression, social isolation, etc. And, of course, to prove that said damages, no matter where they originate from, really exist.
Concerning the social part, it seems obvious to me, if we pay attention to the countless social events that the plaintiffs have participated in, including speeches at the British Parliament, interviews on television shows like Oprah Winfrey’s, gala dinners with illustrious personalities, namely British, among others, that said social isolation is totally false.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteConcerning the depressions, although they are in no way proved within the case, in my opinion, in fact it would be very strange if they didn’t exist. The disappearance of a daughter, whether she is dead or alive, whether or not she was abducted, has to originate enormous consequences of that kind. How strange would it be if that wasn’t the case! But about this issue I won’t say anything further, given that the plaintiffs seem to attribute to me and my book all of their pain, as if said disappearance, followed by their arguido status and other circumstances that surround the case, were of no importance, or weren’t more than enough!
Unfortunately, due to clearly dilatory manoeuvres from the plaintiffs, that have once more forced a postponement of the hearing, I am afraid that the trial will drag on – as they clearly wish -, and we won’t have a sentence soon, as I wish would happen, and as I long for. Furthermore, the judicial holidays have already started and, as the Illustrious Judge explained, with the new judiciary organisation coming into force on the 1st of September, the process’ slowness will be considerably increased.
However, my trust in Portuguese justice remains steadfast.
All that is left for me is to recognise and thank you for all the support that I have received, from all those that believe in justice and in truth, without which it would have been impossible for me to fight this lawsuit. Or to lead me to ponder, as I do, to file a lawsuit against the McCann couple and others, in order to be compensated for the enormous damages that they have caused me already, on all levels, such as moral, professional and financial.
The time to judicially react to all those who have put my privacy, my intimacy, my freedom of expression and opinion, and my survival conditions at stake is approaching.
They have tried to assassinate me civilly, but due to the support and solidarity of all of you, they were not successful.
Thank you very much,
Lisboa July 21st, 2014
Gonçalo Amaral
Libel (difamação) in Portugal is a crime, it could never be tried in a Civil Court:
DeleteCÓDIGO PENAL
Disposições relevantes em matéria de comunicação social
PARTE ESPECIAL
TÍTULO I
DOS CRIMES CONTRA AS PESSOAS
CAPÍTULO VI
Dos crimes contra a honra
ARTIGO 180.º
(Difamação)
Why did Wright and Cameron try to explain away foul smells in the boot of the car if it was blood?
ReplyDeleteWhy was the boot left open every night?
Why was the lawyer’s statement about witnessing this not included in the PJ files, as GA said in the podcast 10 that it should be included and didn’t know why it wasn’t?
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1127995592012128256
ReplyDelete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
•Lies, myths & insanity helps the McCanns.
•Tells the public McCanns are attacked by hater trolls with RIDICULOUS theories.
•Public feel sorry for them.
So who's really protecting #McCann? Textusa & the 3 amigos or those who speak FACT?
(censored)
6:54 pm - 13 May 2019
*****
Reason for censoring: we don’t promote filth in the blog.
Interesting.
Those who say they believe that Maddie’s body was in the Scenic, us, are pro-McCann.
Those who say that they don’t believe that Maddie’s body was ever in the Scenic, Mr Thompson, are anti-McCann.
The logic is flawless. As if.
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1128011644913836033
ReplyDelete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx
Well come on! 😂Highest court in the land says it's PROVEN a cadaver was in scenic and McCanns walk free? As if!
Demented!
7:58 pm - 13 May 2019
*****
Portuguese courts, shut your doors, Sade Anslow knows better law than you do.
Let’s look at the following hypothetical scenario, in ANY civilised justice system. Not in the Portuguese one but in any.
A murder has been committed. There are 3 suspects. The investigation has determined that one of them is the murderer but cannot prove which one was. One of the 3 is guilty, the other 2 innocent.
Does the system arrest all 3 or let all 3 walk event though it knows one of them is guilty? It obviously let’s the 3 walk free.
Want an example that is VERY WELL known to all those following the Maddie case? The Leonoer Cipriano torture.
We don’t think any torture happened but the court ruled as proven that it did. We only have to respect that decision. But was anyone sentenced because of it? No.
The court ruled that there had been torture but was unable to determine who the torturer(s) was(were) and so no one was sentenced.
The fact that A body was proven to have been in the Scenic, does not mean it’s enough evidence to sentence anyone because of it as it remains to be determined who was THE cadaver.
Comment received on the previous post that we are bringing it over to this one:
ReplyDeleteFragrant Frog13 May 2019, 20:53:00
The McCanns could not contest the dogs' alerts as the proceedings were civil rather than criminal. The proven fact was that cadaver & blood dog alerts were recorded in the PJ investigation files, not who or what the dogs were actually alerting to. Had this element not been recorded in the files, Amaral would have been guilty of libel by manufacturing the the alerts & their relevance to the criminal case.
*****
Links please to the legal Portuguese norm that prohibits contestation because the proceedings are civil.
You cannot say Gonçalo Amaral would not be guilty of anything. To have that certainty the McCanns would have to go through a libel trial, which they avoided to do.
In our opinion, as we will later explain, but will sum up for now, is that the McCanns did not contest because it would open up the Pandora’s box of discussing matter of fact which the McCann legal team avoided at all costs.
Gerry’s attempt of sneaking in the dogs was to allow him, and only him, to discuss facts without the defense being prepared. Reason why, the judge silenced him rightly so.
Both the sides were on equal terms to contest the PROVEN/NOT PROVEN facts when the judge presented the list to both legal teams, a very reasonable time before pronouncing sentence.
The wording in the PROVEN/NOT PROVEN facts do not refer that the “files say this…”. They are PROVEN facts as they are written. Don’t invent, you were very unfortunate when you did it regarding the absurd deal.
The McCanns opted for a private civil claim for defamation damages because it was the more suitable option. A criminal prosecution would have meant they had to prove Amaral was lying when he accused them of concealing Madeleine's body - i.e. he made a false public accusation as per article 365 of criminal law. A successful case using that pathway would have resulted in a conviction for Amaral but no retribution. As an ex-police officer he would also have had a greater degree of protection against criminal proceedings.
DeleteTaken fromhttp://legaldb.freemedia.at/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf
“During the Lisbon seminar, a representative of the association of Portuguese prosecutors suggested that civil and criminal defamation laws served distinct purposes. The former, he said, are meant to protect or repair damage, while the latter serve, in part, a preventative purpose, warning against repeat offence by the defendant in question or by others.”
With regard to the dogs, Grime had not appeared as a witnessin court therefore the validity of the canine alerts could be neither assessed by the judge nor contested by anyone else. The tort subject to proceedings was defamation, not the disappearance of Madeleine.
BTW Inspector Paulo Ferreira told Kate, as she left Portimao on Sept. 6th, to listen to what her lawyer had to say very carefully (after the lengthy meeting between lawyer & PJ officers). Why did he say that? There was also a witness in the form of Abreu’s assistant who would also be able to verify the nature of the discussion at the villa. Quite why you dismiss any “offer” only shows your bias, especially in light of Amaral’s admission such discussions took place at Portimao.
Frog,
DeleteAfter insulting Pinto de Abreu’s competence, you now insult Isabel Duarte’s. Nice.
Well, at least it’s not only Gonçalo Amaral who gets to be called incompetent by you, the McCann legal team also get it. When are going to pick on Rogério Alves?
Defamation is a crime. Crime goes to criminal courts. There’s no grey area here.
A “private civil claim for defamation” is an oxymoron, contradictory terms appearing in conjunction. If you had said that it was almost exactly defamation it would mean the same, just words.
“A private civil claim for defamation damages” is just a soundbite to make you look clever in order to confuse
One does not get to opt to which court a crime goes to. Defamation is a crime. Defamation damages are damages from a crime.
What you are saying would be the same as saying someone opted out to go to civil court for damages from a malicious stabbing and expect the legal system to ignore the stabbing happened.
To say a “private civil claim for defamation damages” is to say that Isabel Duarte does not know one end of a law book from another. What an insulting thing to say. Like saying Gerry McCann couldn’t tell a heart from a liver.
Any lawyer knows not to file a complaint about a crime in a civil court. Implying Isabel Duarte doesn’t know that is greater insult than implying that Pinto de Abreu was a messenger boy to something any lawyer knows to be illegal.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteLaw is tricky. Very tricky and it does work in mysterious ways. The only way for the McCanns had to “punish” Gonçalo Amaral and not to have the facts of the case discussed, exposed or revealed was to do what they did, go for damages and not the crime of defamation. We have already acknowledged that it was a brilliant legal tactic.
But this had its downsides for the McCanns. You see by claiming damages but not going over the “criminal” threshold, the McCanns had to recognise as factual what was in the PJ files, on which the book was based.
Meaning, by claiming damages on the basis of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and not claiming innocence – if they were to do so they would have to contest why the case was archived and not closed – they tacitly recognised as factual all the files said.
After all, in practical terms what is in the files does not condemn them, otherwise they would have been charged.
For example, the fact that the dogs found marks of blood and cadaver scent in the Scenic, in theory does not point any conclusive guilt onto the McCanns. If it did, they would have been charged.
So, when they accepted to go for damages instead of defamation, they set a trap on themselves: that they accept what is in the files.
The first trap, is that they forever forfeited the possibility to file for defamation. By complaining only based on the principle of presumption of innocence and not on innocence itself, they cannot later claim they are innocent. They have assumed that they only are presumed innocent.
And the judge surprised all. She not only not allowed for facts to be discussed in court – they were tacitly accepted by the plaintiffs so correctly not to be discussed there – as she decided to put the acceptance of the facts by the plaintiffs in black and white with the Proven/Not Proven list she sent to both legal teams for consideration prior pronouncing sentence. She wanted to make sure that there was absolutely no defamation involved.
She snapped the trap the McCanns had set.
She forced them to agree that there was no libel. If they had contested any of the facts, namely the dogs, then it would be her duty to convene a session to clarify that, and there determine what would be the relevance of this in the damages claim.
If, because of contestation, she came to the conclusion that the facts were questionable, then that would have serious implications outside a civil court, as the process fell clearly under criminal justice.
So, the McCanns not only had their hands tied by themselves, as they sealed the fate of not ever being able to deny the facts deemed proven by the court.
The McCanns could do nothing about it. They could not contest the Proven/Not proven facts because the presumption of their entire defense was not about defamation – so accepting the files – but on the non-abidance of the principle of the presumption of innocence, which was not in contradiction with what was in the files.
Martin Grime did not testify in court because he was not called as a witness by either legal team. If he had been, he would not be speaking about the dogs. If he ever speaks in a court of law about the dogs, it will be in a criminal court, not in a civil one.
“BTW Inspector Paulo Ferreira told Kate, as she left Portimao on Sept. 6th, to listen to what her lawyer had to say very carefully”
Link please. Thank you.
“There was also a witness in the form of Abreu’s assistant who would also be able to verify the nature of the discussion at the villa.”
Link please. Thank you.
Now, not only are you persisting on calling Pinto de Abreu incompetent, as you now are claiming he was so in front of one of his staff. Nice.
By the way, if you are as closely involved in events as to be aware of the private conversations between lawyers and police in relation to this “offer”, perhaps you can give us the precise wording of this “offer”?
Not really understanding your interpretation, Textusa.
DeleteMcCanns could have opted for a private prosecution for criminal defamation, which would have been cheaper but permitted the defence to challenge, at the inquiry stage led by the PP, using the (unproven) facts contained in the criminal case files. As the McCanns were suing the author, book publisher & a media outlet, how would that have worked in a criminal prosecution? If the PP decided the case was inadmissible, McCanns could have still insisted charges were filed but the outcome would probably have been unfavourable.
Portuguese law refers to both criminal & civil defamation so I'm unclear as to why you think it's only criminal.
The last part of your post - try reading Kate's book. It's a valuable source of real information rather than the trivia which flew out through that open window in Portimao police station.
just to get this clear....the damages were contested on the basis that the files were a given and they should be believed to be innocent....until proven otherwise? However they were found to be in the eyes of the court suspects until proven otherwise...andby that time had accepted the files as is?? Is that it?
DeleteBampots
Bampots,
Delete“The damages were contested on the basis that the files were a given and they should be believed to be innocent....until proven otherwise?”
Absolutely correct. When they opted for damages, they tacitly assumed there was no defamation. The case was based on “we’re not saying that he’s not right but we are stressing that the fact that he COULD be wrong and because of that he is damaging our family because he should be presuming us to be innocent and not say we are not, even though he COULD be right in saying we are not”.
And the Portuguese justice system, said very clearly, when one is presumed innocent then one is only PRESUMED innocent and that doesn’t mean that one is innocent. And because one has not been declared innocent, those who believe one isn’t may exercise their freedom of speech.
“However they were found to be in the eyes of the court suspects until proven otherwise...andby that time had accepted the files as is?”
Incorrect. The courts never found the McCanns suspect. That time was when they were arguidos and stop being arguidos when the process was archived by the Public Ministry, and that was before any court legal proceedings.
The courts simply clarified what presumption of innocence meant: not having been charged but simultaneously not having been cleared.
Frog,
DeleteAn inquiry led by the Public Prosecutor (PP) is not a trial. The PP, in the end of its work done in whatever process they deal with, they decide on whether to close the case, archive it until further evidence, or send it for trial. The PP does not sentence anyone to anything, that is the exclusive role of the courts in any civilised and sovereign country.
The author, book publisher & a media outlet, if the PP concluded that there was reason to do so, would be taken to criminal trial.
The question here is about proven facts, more specifically the marks of blood and cadaver scent in the Scenic, so we don’t understand what unproven facts that you are referring to, would help prove whether Gonçalo Amaral committed the crime of defamation. Can you please detail which?
Suing, means going directly to a court, meaning the complainant does not feel any necessary need for further determination of proof. No need for any intervention from the PP. Exactly what happened with the McCanns and their damages process in the civil court.
If the complainant feels that there are facts still to be better determined, then a complaint should be filed at the Public Prosecutor for action. Any lawyer knows that.
“Portuguese law refers to both criminal & civil defamation so I'm unclear as to why you think it's only criminal.”
Please quote the Portuguese law you are referring to (by the way, this is the third time that we are requesting for you to back up your legal claims and you have yet to provide any).
Defamation is a crime and a crime is… a crime. There are no crimes that are so little that they are not crimes. Like there is no such thing as being a little pregnant, there is no such thing as defamation not being a crime. But, as we are certain you are going to provide the legal norms that will prove us wrong, we will then – but only then – have no problem in recognising we are wrong.
We have read Kate’s book. And?
If defamation is a crime, why aren't Portuguese jails full of people who've been found guilty of such a crime? Is it because even the judges feel the law is ridiculous? If Amaral & co were found guilty of criminal defamation, who would receive the proceeds of the illicit book & documentary - the State, the McCanns or would the criminals keep their profits?
DeleteThe tort is defamation. The liability for damages arising from that tort falls under the Civil code. I'm sure you can find the article number if you look hard enough.
Perhaps you need to read the book again to find the cites you requested. They're all in there.
M's body was in the scenic. For them to leave the boot open day in, and every night. Even Mark S has made a huge effort to point that one out. Doesn’t Ben believe in Mark S?
ReplyDeleteNot to publish identified reader at 13 May 2019, 22:44:00
ReplyDeleteWe only have transcribed fully what the picture attached by your friend Mr Thompson said.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6dOQ7yXsAE_2jq.jpg
If that is your authorship and not of Astro or/and QV, that is something you should take up with Mr Thompson or with the site he linked up in his tweet, not with us.
Not to publish identified reader 14 May 2019, 01:28:00
DeleteEthics is something that comes from within, either one has it or one doesn’t and we are not going to take any lessons of ethics from you.
We transcribed what was in the picture and we quoted the source where the picture was made public. If the source has infringed your authorship rights, it’s up to the source to correct it and if it doesn’t it’s where should address this issue.
By the way, we agree fully with you on this. You have every right to be outraged. It is not pleasant to see one’s work being reproduced without acknowledgement – an experience the blog is familiar with.
Would we have a problem in stating that you are the author? As per words above, of course not and we will gladly make public your claim. However, abiding by the principle of the “do not publish” comments, unless you allow us to use your name, ethics don’t allow us to do so.
On whether you are friends or not with Mr Thompson, as you were all friendly bashing the blog over at NotTextusa, we assumed you were. It seems we were wrong. Our apologies.
Not to publish identified reader,
DeleteWe see that you have taken no action against the original publisher of the tweet on this subject.
And you want to teach us all about ethics? Really?
Comment submitted to the previous post that we are bringing over to this one:
ReplyDelete“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The protection of the McCanns by José António Sara...":
You're wrong and taking peoples words out of context entirely.
STOP using Amaral's words twisting them. And everyone else's. Disgusting.
Silverdoe NOT Mr Thompson
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 14 May 2019, 03:56:00”
*****
Silverdoe,
Please quote what Gonçalo Amaral’s words we have twisted in your opinion.
Thank you.
You are ignoring the supreme court rulings.
DeleteAmaral won thank goodness AGAIN - But, the supreme courts stated themselves it was not a criminal case, it was a freedom of speech case. IF it were a criminal case, they'd have used those kinds of rulings via ECHR cases like they did regarding cases which were libel, not criminal.
Portuguese and English, the courts are indeed different, you can't have it all your own way.
And the McCann's did contest even the supreme court rulings hence the annulment request which was also denied. I'll await the 'belittling childish reply back, don't worry.' Just don't use the later facts whilst you do......Silverdoe
Silverdoe,
DeletePlease state where have we ignored the rulings.
It was not a criminal case? Really? Are you serious? Wow... and here we were thinking that the fact the case took place in a civil court and not a criminal one was a dead give-away that it was not a criminal case... and that it was not libel.
By the way, Amaral did not lose or win AGAIN. One, he didn't win, he simply didn't lose. The Appeal Court and later the Supreme Justice Court gave him reason, while the First Instance Court gave reason to the McCanns.
The complaint, which you attached, had nothing to do with Gonçalo Amaral. It was a legal question between the McCanns and the Supreme Justice Court itself. In that decision, the McCanns lost and the Supreme Justice Court did not lose.
In the end of the process – which is the only thing that matters – the McCanns lost, no one won.
Now, back to the request you have not replied to. You said "STOP using Amaral's words twisting them." We are waiting for you to tell us which.
Silver
DeleteIt’s only the Mcs who could win the case as they instigated it.
They lost the case. GA didn’t win, he just didn’t lose. He gained nothing from it, in terms of money.
I understand that is the case as per the 'win or not' and if I am wrong there I am happy to be wrong, my ego can take being wrong, but the difference is, in the UK and in Portugal, laws are different and stated differently and that can be used by 'some' to abuse and twist into what they are not.
DeleteWhere did I say it wasn't in a civil court not a criminal one?
I said and I can show where I corrected myself, don't forget to use the later facts when you do reply, I was perfectly polite.
I am still being perfectly polite.
Amaral won as he has our support. He had people behind him who kindly donated to help him. People wish to hear HIS voice and he done right by his ethics - The McCann's thought they could silence him forever they didn't so perhaps so much not a 'legal win' as much as an 'ethical win'? I apologise for poor wording, on MY part. They pushed even after via the annulment request which the McCann's lost, and now the ECHR application. You're not lenient to the fact that 1 - UK and Portugal laws are different and 2 - Ben was actually agreeing with you here, from what I can see, and then you used Amaral's words to twist what he meant Textusa13 May 2019, 19:53:00
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1128005679439065088
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @Anvil161Anvil16 @PollyGraph69
You of all people should know that wasn't a criminal case. It was to ascertain if Goncalo Amaral had a right to voice his opinion. God knows, textusa banged on about it not being a libel trial enough.
7:34 pm - 13 May 2019
*****
Oh, look who is now trying to push the idea that the damages trial was a libel trial? Mr Thompson.
Let’s overlook the fact that Gonçalo Amaral felt the need to come out himself and publish a statement saying that it was a damages trial and not a libel one. Again, Mr Thompson disrespects Gonçalo Amaral.
But the fact that it wasn’t a libel trial, but a damages one, helps explain the PROVEN/NOT PROVEN facts determined by the Portuguese Justice system, as well as it also explains why the judge cut off Gerry’s words when he tried to bring the dogs up in court.
We will explain soon.
Reply
Silverdoe
Silverdoe,
DeleteDo you have any different meaning to these words: "textusa banged on about it not being a libel trial enough."?
That is clearly saying that the trial was libel one, and that - now we are providing an opinion - we were very stupid to say that it was not a libel trial.
But that's our interpretation of his words. What is yours?
I think Ben sticks to facts, which I respect...
DeleteAnd I think you like to twist words to suit, especially our tweets. Which I don't respect.
I am still learning things myself in this case, but myths do not help it no matter where they come from...
Silverdoe
Silverdoe,
DeleteIt's a fact that "banged on about it not being a libel trial enough". And we will continue to keep banging on about it.
What is there that you have to learn to understand the meaning of "textusa banged on about it not being a libel trial enough"?
Unpublished Anonymous at 13 May 2019, 17:04:00
ReplyDeleteApologies for the late reply but it was a rather busy day yesterday.
Before we decide on whether we should publish your comment, we should ask for more info.
Why would the McCanns do what you suggest and stage a site which was prejudicial to them?
What are you suggesting their motive was?
NotTextusa: “In light of the fact that famous female impersonator and chronic lunatic Textusa has been flapping his wasted gums…”
ReplyDeleteIn the sake of balance, when are you lot going to out the 2 “famous female impersonators” and/or “famous male impersonators” from the Justice for Madeleine FB Group?
We remind the names that are in question: Kirstie Murray, Ben Thompson, Paul Rees, Natalie Charslesworth, Netty Estelle and Trish Hills Allen.
Not confirming or denying the “gender” accusation, we would like to point out that Maria Santos has always assumed herself as a heteronym created by 3 people, while all the names above pretend to be real people.
You are not permitted a “heteronym created by three people” on Facebook, it is a breach of their terms which protect against people like you. When I complained that “Bronte Textusa” was not a real person, you had to change it, and provide real evidence of identity. So we know you used the ID of a real person, called Maria Santos, to get around it. We also know that wasn’t you, so it is abundantly clear that you are creating a false persona using someone else’s real details.
DeleteAnd when are you going to report the 2 fake profiles of these 6 FB profiles?
DeleteKirstie Murray, Ben Thompson, Paul Rees, Natalie Charlesworth, Netty Estelle and Trish Hills Allen.
We are guessing you like to be consistent and coherent.
Can anyone link where in the files is said:
ReplyDelete- the blood on the key FOB was Gerry’s
- that Gerry cut his hand.
Firing this off the hip. Not saying it’s not in the files but if someone could point out where it is, it would save us time.
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1128222609903181824
DeleteSheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @strackers74 and 3 others
Eddie 'seemed' to mark the car door where the key went. The key he and Keela both marked twice that had Gerry's blood on it. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/59-DA-27.htm
No one is dissing the dogs, it's stating facts. That's bad now? Just because we have different opinions, they shouldn't gang up.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6hAIGWXoAA1Xvz.png
9:56 am - 14 May 2019
[The picture attached says the following:
“The Renault Scenic vehicle ? number plate 59-DA-27 was removed to the third floor of the underground car park and was subjected to a forensic search by officers from the Scientific Police Laboratory and another sniffer dog inspection that began at 03.49 on 7th August by the dog KEELA, which detected human blood remains, the following results were noted:
03.53 ? the dog ?marked? a zone on the right inferior side of the inside of the luggage compartment of the vehicle;
04.11 ? the dog 'marked' the compartment on the driver's side, which was seen to contain the vehicle's key, of a plastic electronic card type, with a key ring from the Budget car rental agency.
With the aim of confirming whether the dog had effectively ?marked? the vehicle's key, which was inside the compartment on the driver's side, at 04.13 the key in question was removed from the vehicle and hidden in a place far from the vehicle on the third floor of the underground car park.
At about 04.14 it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of a box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which, effectively, the vehicle's key had been hidden.
At approximately 04.50 a new sniffer dog inspection was carried out using the dog EDDY which detects cadaver odour, using the vehicle key which for this purpose was hidden on the fourth floor of the underground car park, far away from the vehicle.
At about 04.51, it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of the box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which the key had been hidden.”]
*****
It has already been established that the key FOB had blood. For us Keela alerting to blood is the proof that there was blood, no need for any forensic report to confirm.
But the question remains – and you are one who says she only deals with FACTS – where does it say in the files that it was Gerry’s blood?
And where is it also in the files that Gerry provided as an explanation that the blood on the key FOB was his, because he cut his hands?
Just trying to get FACTS straight.
The before mentioned FSS's Interim Report indicated that there are, resulting from the examinations made to the luggage compartment, biological components that may be compatible with the ones of the minor ; however, this test does not definitely show that the traces originated in MADELEINE's body.
Delete- The dead body scent dog, as well as the human blood detecting dog, also gave Alert to the key of the before mentioned vehicle. The Laboratory also confirmed the existence of GERALD McCANN's DNA in the key. Furthermore, this last Alert was given by the dog's when the key was placed away from the vehicle and in a place out of sight - Gerry's DNA not Madeleine's.... https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm Silverdoe
Silverdoe,
DeleteThank you. About the DNA belonging to Gerry.
Only lacking now, about the cut on his hand.
The fact is this surely?
DeleteThe key WAS moved AWAY From the car. BOTH dogs hit on the key again, meaning 1 - They were spot on and 2 - They corroborated each other and 3 - That the key was what Eddie hit on, but if you see where he barks at the car? It's near where you unlock the car door, so, would logic then dictate that's what Eddie was barking out hence the reason they as in, Grime and the PJ moved the key away from the car to test that theory?
I think that's exactly what they done meaning only Keela actually alerted INSIDE the car where 15/19 markers DNA matched Madeleine again , Keela doing exactly what she was trained to do. The dogs were both unique and amazing. How or if Gerry did cut himself anywhere for the blood to get on the keys would have been down to the PJ to determine, I haven't seen it said in the files anywhere myself. Silverdoe
Silverdoe, thank you.
DeleteHope we're not distorting words here:
Delete"Textusa: Do you seriously think the key fob didn't come into contact with the car or that Gerry's cut hand didn't?"
It's not proven as FACT that Eddie DIDN'T signal to CADAVER (and blood) odour when barking outside the hired Scenic car. It's quite possible that, given that the door was closed, Eddie barked to signal cadaver - its smell being more powerful, or pungent, than blood. Irrespective of that, Keela signalling to blood in the boot of the car is not going to be shoo'd away with the rotten meat, fish scenario, I hope? IT was found to have Maddie's DNA after all - even though the Scenic was hired after her 'abduction' / death.
DeleteWhispering
https://twitter.com/zoramac_/status/1128259545342664704
ReplyDeleteZora @zoramac_
Textusa was unhappy with my friendship with Ben and I was unhappy that Ben was accused of being involved in stalking a young girl and so we’re no longer friends. It’s no more juicy than that /end.
12:23 pm - 14 May 2019
*****
We do not confirm or deny allegations made about us. But we have to open an exception in this case as it is being dealt with by authorities.
To be very clear. We have never accused Mr Thompson of being involved in the stalking.
The stalking was done by professional, competent people. We’re talking about the action itself, not about who ordered and/or allowed it to ever take place.
No one would trust someone unhinged, unreliable and untrustworthy as Mr Thompson with such sensitive information. In the slightest tight spot, he has no problem in throwing anyone under the bus to save his skin, and that is if he’s unable to run away and not meet up with people. Only an idiot would trust a person like this.
Nor have we accused anyone of the gang of taking part in the stalking.
What we accuse Mr Thompson, and the rest of the gang, of is of being involved with people he knows to be linked upstream to those who ordered the stalking.
And we also accuse him of making this anonymous comment on NT’s blog regarding the stalking:
“Anonymous28 November 2018 at 20:36
A member of your family (pretending for a second that it's not just one bored guy writing the whole thing) is stalked.
You've done the right thing, going to authorities for help. What next?
A. Allow authorities to look into it, and await their conclusions. Keep quiet about what you think happened so as not to cause hindrance.
B. Bleat about it in public, potentially stunting any progress police could make/making sure to include a microscopic image of a nonspecific police report/drawing conclusions by yourself/instead of thinking of safety measures like providing her a phone, openly arse about in the streets playing investigator/create new characters on the fly (1 weirdo becoming 3 'operatives', which sounds so much more important)
C. Nothing because it never happened, and this loony attention grab wouldn't fool anyone”
From FB Anon:
ReplyDelete"If the gang are now only dealing in facts, how can they accept the BRT / neglect as fact?"
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1128281563257626626
ReplyDelete⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @bitconfused90 @strackers74 and 2 others
Well you're right about some people trying to change what was already a well established fact. But, seeing as my tweets are lifted by the idiot blogger and then their sad groupies start to lie about the dogs to make me look bad, I'll not bother sharing the truth with ppl who ask.
1:51 pm - 14 May 2019
*****
When has ever telling the truth made anyone look bad?
If one accepts the new revisionists and their version of events, did the alerts of both Keela and Eddie behind the sofa mean the finding of blood residue was the only certainty?
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean there is also no proof M died in 5a?
Does that mean M wasn’t left behind the sofa after her death? That Eddie may have been alerting to blood and that blood could have had an innocent explanation.
To add to a certain person’s belief that M’s body wasn’t carried in the car boot?
Perhaps the revisionists could clarify.
From a friend who is on Twitter:
ReplyDelete“XXXXX sent me this and said it sums up the tag about the Textusa blog 😁”
And friend attached a picture saying this:
“The Likelihood of One Individual Being
Right…
…Increases in Direct Proportion
To the Intensity with which Others are
Trying to Prove them Wrong.”
Thank you XXXXX and friend. Very touching.
https://youtu.be/hjtbaFZ01bA
ReplyDeleteAround 3 mins, the woman who saw car boot open is interviewed.
Posting this as a reminder. Gonçalo Amaral spoke of it in podcasts.
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1128794734447747072
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @CarlaSpade
What would children have been doing at a VIP swinging event? Where did it take place? Where are the photos?
11:50 pm - 15 May 2019
*****
What pictures? Those with blurred out faces taken by tabloid paparazzi because, according to someone commenting here on the blog, some villagers complained they could see naked bodies through windows?
No, there are no such pictures of the swinging in Luz in 2007. We only have locals saying that there were parties of sexual nature, and you saying there were gay swinging parties in the area at the time.
"According to someone". Wow, the evidence you provide is compelling.
DeleteAnonymous16 May 2019, 18:13:00
DeleteWe published an article in this comment:
https://textusa.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-protection-of-mccanns-by-jose.html?showComment=1557413646312#c4293501095696017095
This was the article:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6969091/Inside-80-ticket-swingers-club-Exmoor-National-Park.html
We then followed with these 2 replies to the comment:
“Textusa9 May 2019, 15:55:00
If swinging is perfectly acceptable, one must wonder why the faces of the people in these photographs are censored:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12823674-6969091-Adventurous_twosomes_and_saucy_single_women_wound_their_way_thro-a-89_1556466954757.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12823678-6969091-Scenes_from_Saturday_s_party-m-88_1556466945229.jpg
Caption: Adventurous twosomes and saucy single women wound their way through the country lanes of Exmoor to join a late-night sex party on Saturday at The Croydon Hall Hotel on Exmoor
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12821578-6969091-The_venue_is_currently_offering_late_night_sex_sessions_using_te-a-90_1556466975647.jpg
Caption: The venue, which hosts the private sex club, is currently under investigation by the Exmoor National Park Authority over concerns that the venue may not have proper planning permission for its activities
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/17/12824230-6969091-image-m-101_1556467946420.jpg
Caption: One local says he has been forced to leave the village since the sex events began. Pictured: Attendees arriving at Saturday's event
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12823012-0-image-a-79_1556465721381.jpg
Caption: Neighbours are particularly concerned by the disruption caused by randy revellers coming and going until four in the morning
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/28/16/12822542-6969091-image-m-140_1556464760748.jpg
Caption: The owner of the venue has denied claims that his guests are disrespectful of neighbours and says he has soundproofed the building”
And:
“Textusa9 May 2019, 15:55:00
And if swinging is so accepted, why this?
“And residents in the sleepy village of Rodhuish in Somerset, where the hotel is located, are 'sickened' by the 'Disneyland for adults' that has sprung up. One says he has been forced to leave the village since the sex events began.
'People come to Exmoor on holiday and they do not expect to stumble across a sex club in this beautiful area. It makes me feel sick,' said Anne Pitts, 66, who moved to the area nine years ago, told Mail Online.””
Then we received this reply:
“Anonymous10 May 2019, 18:49:00
You are missing the point.
The swingers don't give a shit. It's just the locals who are complaining”
*****
It wasn’t us speaking of the villagers. Glad you agree with us that it is ridiculous.
You claim there are no pictures of the big round table, therefore it doesn’t exist. Well, applying the same logic there was no swinging either, as no pictures exist.
ReplyDeleteThis is NOT one of the most dumb comments we have ever received.
DeleteThis is THE dumbest comment we have ever received.
Again we ask, don't you people think before you write?
No photography rule:
Deletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5415363/amp/Couple-spicing-love-life-running-swingers-sex-club.html
Is that really the best you can do?
DeleteThis is how you operate
Standard response to any point raised by another:
“Where does it say that in the files?”
Standard response to anyone asking for evidence of swinging from the files:
“Are you stupid?”
Abuse is your go-to position when you have no answer. Which is about 98% of the time
From FB Anon:
ReplyDelete“https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1128805680432013312
Another gem from the Frog. So how would the McCanns explain going home with 1 less child than they went away with....”
*****
Bringing the tweet over to the blog:
“Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16
As I've said before, if there was any sort of cover-up the Portuguese police would never have been called in the first place.
12:33 am - 16 May 2019”
Now there's an individual who hasn't got the slightest clue as to the complexities of the Madeleine is 'missing' global charade. As Kate's mother said years ago "there's a lot of people involved in this."
DeleteToo right there is, and then some, they all KNOW, each and every last one of them.
Look at Totman, he still had the same clothes years later? As if!
For FB Anon
DeleteDifficult choice between either explaining to the world why you are going home missing one child or using your VIP connections from the outset to sort out the necessary cover-story, documentation & arrangements without involving the police or media. You decide which was hypothetically more appropriate.
From FB Anon:
Delete“Reply to the Frog: You are saying that if they had wanted to, the McCanns could have used their VIP connections to cover up the death of a child. I would like to know how 2 ordinary doctors on an alleged ordinary family holiday, would be able to muster up the kind of help that would be needed to cover up such a death. And also why said VIPs would assist the McCanns in this way? What would be in it for them? Why would they take the risks unless the VIPs were somehow complicit?”
That's the conundrum you have to work out, Textusa. Publicity or privacy - which would your hypothetical VIP swingers have opted for in the immediate aftermath?
Deletehttps://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1129316323757101057
ReplyDeleteMari Welzel @umweltbuerger
Block a Rat. one more 'rat' popped up.? ! ould be madame herself furthering her case without her face, eventually you may hear 'f.....g t.....s' it's chronic, it comes through the backdoor, her way to plant her (simulated abduction) case. All IMO #mccann
10:22 am - 17 May 2019
*****
Brilliant Mari. Whispering sussed him out as well.
No, Mari, it’s not “madame herself” but it is a rat. The Rat.
We have been busy today – reason why we haven’t replied to the Frog yet, but we will in time – because we have been collating information about the Rat.
Before we publish his tweets, we have to warn readers that he uses an “anti-screengrab” technique. That is, he likes to say what he wants to say in more than 1 tweet. Unfortunately for the Rat, we are patient. Very patient.
Makes it harder to follow, his readers only get to grasp the main points, makes it easier to veer off in different threads in ‘mid-sentence’. All intentional as readers will see.
And all readers familiar with the case, will very quickly be able to spot who the rat is. However, 2 hints. His Twitter account was suspended recently and his blog is in such a state that if any EVRD dog would pass within a mile of it would be howling at the moon all night long.
Let’s start on how the Rat has thrown us all of track. With his views on the debate launched by Mr Thompson on whether Eddie could only have alerted to blood in the Scenic:
(Please be ready for long tweet threads)
https://twitter.com/PollyGraph69/status/1127335486777958400
DeleteDebbie Lee Perry @PollyGraph69
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NancyParks8 and 48 others
Do you believe madeleine #McCann was abducted? 👆
11:11 PM - 11 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127485895115005952
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @PollyGraph69 @NancyParks8 and 48 others
What I believe is irrelevant.
There is no evidence that she was.
Believing otherwise is as random and arbitrary as believing martians descended and took her with the purpose of bringing her back one day equipped with the information required to cure cancer.
9:09 AM - 12 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127486645509459969
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @PollyGraph69 and 49 others
All I would say to people who do believe in the abduction theory is to ask the questions:
How many people have died in 5a over the years, why were they not reported and why did they only die in 5a and not any other apartment?
How many bodies on average are being transported in
9:12 AM - 12 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/BourgeoisViews/status/1127510466379636736
BourgeoisViews @BourgeoisViews
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @PollyGraph69 and 47 others
Why does it matter? The dog alerts were uncorroborated. There's no way for you to know they weren't false alerts.
10:46 AM - 12 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127521500498726913
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @BourgeoisViews @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
They weren’t false alerts.
Those dogs don’t make false alerts.
That’s why the test for cadaverine contamination is an EVRD alert.
And there is no other known test for it.
The test for an accurate EVRD is continous demonstration of ability.
What do you have invested in
11:30 AM - 12 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127522355998265344
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 48 others
Inferring discreditation on a creditable, reliable method?
What can you objectively gain from an incredulously determined insistence that an unevidenced and statistically improbable failure of an attested method? I don’t understand your investment in a futile argument.
11:34 AM - 12 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/BourgeoisViews/status/1127530205449469953
BourgeoisViews @BourgeoisViews
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
Actually, what has not been researched is what uncorroborated dog alerts mean. So since we can't know that such alerts aren't false alerts, they aren't evidence.
12:05 PM - 12 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127576926045057024
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @BourgeoisViews @PollyGraph69 and 48 others
It doesn’t need researching.
Why would it need researching?
It means “uncorroborated.”
Not “invalidated.”
Not “disproven.”
Not “false.”
Not “meaningless.” “Uncorroborated.”
3:11 PM - 12 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1127577341646049280
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 49 others
They don’t make “false alerts.”
You rule out “false alerts” by presenting their history of not making false alerts.
It’s a falsified scientific methodology.
As a discipline it authenticates itself.
You should learn about forensic science. It’s fascinating.
3:12 PM - 12 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Esjabe1/status/1128457785467899905
💙 єѕנαвє 💛 @Esjabe1
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 47 others
How absurd!! That’s not how false alerts are ruled out, 3>.
1:31 AM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128576666941427717
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Esjabe1 @BourgeoisViews and 47 others
It’s exactly how you rule false alerts out.
Let’s take your claim...
How many false alerts do you want to claim occurred?
Per dog?
Are you going for “all of them”?
Ok...
You want to sell the argument that not one forensic dog, but two, given the same locale, produced
9:23 AM - 15 May 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128577218274373633
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others
nothing but false alerts.
Even when these “false alerts” confirmed the same locations, which is itself a verification of the validity of the alerts.
So you’re arguing, what, that the two dogs agreed to just completely perform contrary to their training...
We’ll forget for a
9:25 AM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128577788859047936
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others
moment that unlike humans the dogs are very narrow in their abilities in this kind of work. Yes... they are. It’s a limitation. They literally can’t lie. They can’t adopt fakery, because they don’t know what it is and can’t comprehend the reasoning behind using it.
So...
9:28 AM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128578631243051009
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others
They literally don’t know how to make a fake alert. Not a clue. If their trigger scent is not there, if it cannot be pinpointed amidst all the odours they are literally trained to “shrug it off” and keep searching. If the scent they are trained to detect is not present, they
9:31 AM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128579279770533888
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others
literally don’t know what to alert to...
They’re trained to detect something so extremely specific, that to “alert” to something else would be ridiculous because the “somethig else” would literally have to be “everywhere” because it would have to be part of the background
9:34 AM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128579766599192576
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others
signature through which they are trained to screen.
If a “false alert” meant what you say it means, and the EVRD is eminently capable of them, then the EVRD should be impossible to deploy, because it would do nothing BUT alert from the minute it was unloaded to the moment it was
9:35 AM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128580418960351232
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others
put back into transport, and it would be reasonable to believe that in a resort like Ocean Club, they might have at least half the properties identified by dog as being suspicious.
So... consider statistically...
Neither dog had a noteworthy issue of failing to do its job
9:38 AM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128580927259471872
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others
before that deployment. Neither dog had such a history since that deployment.
Neither dog demonstrated randomness or confusion at the scene, nor produced any other alerts which presented a cause for concern or evidence of misdirection in the way the dogs were behaving.
Both the
9:40 AM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/BourgeoisViews/status/1128615354815717377
BourgeoisViews @BourgeoisViews
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 47 others
Uncorroborated dog alerts are still not evidence. There's no way to know they're not false alerts.
11:57 AM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128638846474838016
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @BourgeoisViews @Esjabe1 and 47 others
Those alerts were corroborated.
They were not “false alerts.”
EVRD’s don’t make “false alerts” - they’re only capable of valid alerts that have innocuous explanations.
The way to know if an EVRD has made a “valid” alert, is that it has made an alert.
1:30 PM - 15 May 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128719046919245824
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
You're very naive. Dogs operate at the level of 3 year olds and regard searches as a game with hopefully a reward at the end of it. They are perfectly capable of giving a false alert if they have had enough of the game: Eddie alerting to the clothes for example. #mccann
6:49 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128768971396849673
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
No, EVRD’s do not give “false alerts” if they “tire of the game.”
To do such would denote a calculated choice on the part of the dog, and an act of deliberate fraud.
They don’t demonstrate either.
10:07 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128769528446509057
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others
Most curious but the purported “false alert” on the clothes did give rise to attempts to present a narrative in which an innocuous explanation was offered to mitigate the alert.
Are you saying that agents acting on behalf of the McCann’s lied when they said it was reasonable for
10:10 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128770169436815361
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others
certain items to be subject to positive alerts for cadaver contact due to Kate’s contact with deceased patients recently in her job as a GP?
Are the close associates and professional apologists for the McCann’s in the habit of lying to try to protect Kate and Gerry from what
10:12 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128780132179689472
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
Eddie's alert to the #McCann clothes was a false positive. No evidence of any cadaver odour contaminant. He was just responding to subconscious cues from his handler. If the PJ had included clothes from other people, it would have been a fair test.
10:52 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128784149790298112
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
No, it wasn’t a “false positive”.
It was an alert for what is crudely called “scent of death”. The test for “scent of death” is a “cadaver” or EVRD alert.
No further test is required for the alert to be deemed credible. Corroborating evidence may be required for the alert to be
11:08 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128784665169604616
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others
presented in court.
The irony of you arguing against the dog being a reliable detector for something you can’t see or examine is that you’re arguing that the dog is not responding to a scent he’s proven to be highly sensitive to, but instead is responding to “subconscious cues”
11:10 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128796604805337088
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
If there's no scent, the dog can't respond to it. #mccann
11:57 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/maxine68711804/status/1128797562427924481
✂️S N I P S ✂️ @maxine68711804
Replying to @Cerb32 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others
They did respond
12:01 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128796425456902144
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
Re clothes: handler has already jumped to a premature conclusion of death. Dog does not detect cadaver scent so just ambles about and eventually picks up clothing in its mouth. Handler expects an alert. Dog recognises body language and barks to please handler. #mccann
11:56 PM - 15 May 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128813040433094658
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
“Non-expert rambling bollocks I know better than police forensics specialist and I love doing this because I get you to watch a video and I have a line of bullshit for each & every action you see to convince you that everything you see means exactly what I tell you you’re seeing”
1:02 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128814519495610370
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
It's an alternative explanation for a highly unreliable, poorly designed inspection of the clothes. I don't expect you to consider this explanation as you have a closed mind and an axe to grind re the #mccann s
1:08 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128834360277381121
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
I’m not considering the explanation because it’s bollocks. No other reason. If it wasn’t meaningless, ignorant bollocks it would be getting discussed.
“Highly unreliable...”
False. 95% efficacy or more on well-developed EVRD’s in detection of “scent of death” traces
2:27 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128834997933232128
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others
95% is “extremely reliable.”
“Poorly designed inspection of the clothes.”
Lay clothes out. Pass detection equipment over clothes thoroughly, in accordance with normal procedure. Observe alert or no alert.
Seems very well designed to me. Maximum efficiency. Job done.
2:30 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129303705742970880
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
Including clothes from other sources in the inspection of the clothes would have helped eliminate the possibility of handler cueing, which Grime says is the main source of false positives and which appears to have happened in this case. #mccann
9:32 AM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129328967385849856
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
How many clothes were examined in the tests, out of curiosity?
11:13 AM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128792590181117954
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
The other dog alerts appear to be sound but revealed nothing incriminating. Nobody knows what Eddie was alerting to in the bedroom of 5A. That doesn't stop anti #mccann s speculating and presenting their idle speculation as fact.
11:41 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128804271204515840
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
The “cadaver” dog alerts exclusively at the scene of a very dubious alleged abduction which were then corroborated by highly relevant forensic discoveries and that’s not “incriminating.”
There’s a more than 95% certainty the EVRD was detecting cadaver odour and you appear to ,
12:28 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/maxine68711804/status/1128793014053351424
✂️S N I P S ✂️ @maxine68711804
Replying to @Cerb32 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others
Nobody knows what the cadaver dog who only alerts to cadaverine was alerting to .... oh
11:43 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128974778184941568
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @maxine68711804 @IsmailARat5 and 32 others
Eddie alerted to the odour of dried blood, which could come from a living person. He also alerted to the odour from pig and human cadavers and could not distinguish between the two odours. #mccann
11:45 AM - 16 May 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128985099549192194
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @maxine68711804 and 32 others
You have no support for your basis on ruling what the EVRD detected.
If “cadaver scent” qualifies as dried blood, deploying an EVRD AND a blood dog to the location would be utterly redundant.
If the dog can’t tell the difference between dried blood and cadaver, it literally
12:26 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128985365338034176
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 33 others
has no purpose. And that is clearly not the position SYP, NSY, PJ, MG or ultimately the FBI took.
12:27 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128986281365708801
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 33 others
As for “Eddie couldn’t tell the difference between pig and cadaver” either I ought to be astonished at the fact that for all their brainiacs and scientific methods, the police forces and contractors training these important tools made a fatal omission when they failed to factor
12:31 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128986774355742720
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 33 others
in a way to demonstrate that the dog can distinguish between where Mrs Zapata had been laid, or a side of ham...
Or...
I can rest assured that the process is falsified and refined to the point where there are no grounds for defence lawyers to leap up in court shouting
12:33 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128987077662695424
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 33 others
“Objection, your honour, but this cadaver dog can’t tell the difference between the smell of a human decomposing and a rotting pork pie.”
12:34 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129121390521737216
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @maxine68711804 and 32 others
"Who's death?" "It has to be the death of a missing girl, Your Honour". "Because?" "Well, er ....., no pigs were reported missing in PdL, Your Honour." "Get out of my court!"
#mccann
9:28 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129118447173079041
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @maxine68711804 and 32 others
"Your Honour. Eddie has alerted to the odour of either a human cadaver, a pig cadaver, dried blood from a live or dead human or responded to subconscious cues from his handler during canine searches that ignored protocols designed to a avoid bias. It can only mean death." #mccann
9:16 PM - 16 May 2019
He seems to be one of us, doesn’t he?
DeleteThe Rat blows apart those who like Mr Thompson are trying to discredit Eddie’s alerts in the Scenic.
And we agree 99.9% of what the Rat says above. The truth is the truth, and it doesn’t matter from which mouth it comes from. If from a honest one or from a fetid one like the Rat’s.
Where do we disagree? When he says EVRD have a 95% efficiency rate. It’s not 95%, it’s 100%.
Interesting how no one with whom he’s debating him challenges him on this. He says 95% and they accept it just like that.
We challenge him. Rat, please show where you got that 95% figure from. Thank you.
Where do you get your 100% figure from?
DeleteAnonymous 17 May 2019, 22:04:00,
DeleteOne we get a response from the Rat about his 95%, we will gladly answer your question.
Why can't you answer it now? His response makes no difference to where you get your figure from
DeleteNow let’s see what is the Rat’s opinions on Mark Perlin:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/NewsAnagrams/status/1128921982978813952
DeleteTina @NewsAnagrams
Replying to @may_shazzy @xxSiLverdoexx
The John Lowe/FFS [typo later acknowledged, should have been FSS]report is a result of cover-up & protection of #mccanns
8:15 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128933382115581952
Shazzy May @may_shazzy
Replying to @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx
I suspect so. Dr Perlin can sort it out. He spoke respectfully of the Lowe Report. Technology in 2007 didnt have the ability to decipher DNA data. Dr Perlin is a true professional and a diplomatic man. #mccann
9:01 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128978754238373888
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx
A “true professional” man would be speaking to the ACTUAL jurisdictional custodians of the evidence, professionally, and not through the media via a circus of expressly McCann Sympathist orchestration.
A “true professional” would know precisely that offering consultative advice
12:01 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128986060128542720
Shazzy May @may_shazzy
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx
How do you know Dr Perlin hasn't approached the right people through the correct channels?
12:30 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128991227943247872
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx
Because if he was professional enough to do that he’d know that creating a “look at me, look at me” media circus is not gaining him friends.
What he’s doing is so apparently directed by some agenda to turn this into a public circus that he’s made himself untrustworthy.
12:50 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1128991774725353472
SheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481543/Inventor-DNA-fingerprinting-says-hell-help-McCanns-clear-name.html THIS is unprofessional...
Perlin offered, it's not down to him how others may react concerning that kind and generous offer.
Those are YOUR opinions. Not facts.......
What good have you done like he has in the world?
12:53 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128997614920392705
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams
Perlin doesn’t need to offer.
Anyone who needs his services can find him.
As they can find other, equally competent labs in Europe or Japan.
No one needed a media circus adding to the case.
Perlin created one.
Why?
1:16 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1128997963815170049
SheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams
So, genuine question....
Brace yourself....
Who the hell are you to tell professionals in their fields most respected how to do their job?
1:17 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129000886766886912
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams
Where have I told anyone how to do their job?
I explained, entirely accurately, why behaving like a media circus clown is (a) detrimental to the actual police case you want to play celebrity DNA expert to and (b) is offputtingly unprofessional.
“Your honour, we had these
1:29 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129001587542831104
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others
forces, and not least attempting to badger and provoke our clients into letting him have access to those samples... demonstrates pre-existing bias in the case and the authorities should not have indulged him. Move to reject the evidence...”
1:32 PM - 16 May 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1129002210245980160
SheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams
''Your honour, we were grateful of Doctor Perlin's gracious offer BUT you see, here's the thing, it was already tested and kept under judicial secrecy so it was not needed at that time...'' The end.
1:34 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129003356985470976
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams
What fucking relevance does that abstract nonsense have to anything?
What are you contending?
Why would a court ever have to hear about Dr Perlin’s (long may his ass be kissed by conspiracy theorists) “gracious” offer.
No one is obliged to give an account as to why they don’t
1:39 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129003829071101952
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others
need to take him up on it, or give him a reach-around in his media circus to say “we love you anyway...”
His. Involvement. Was. Not. Solicited. Not. Welcome. Not. Warranted. Not. Helpful. Not. Professional.
For them or for him.
He should have recused himself from the circus.
1:41 PM - 16 May 2019
Why would Dr Perlin’s evidence not be admissible in a court?
DeleteWhere has Mark Perlin pointed any guilt towards the McCanns? Or shown any bias against them?
As far as we know, Mark Perlin has offered his services to clarify what the existing samples present and a hypothesis is that the abductor’s DNA could be found there, and it that was the case, it would exonerate completely the McCanns.
The Rat, who is so correct on the dogs, is filled with fear when it comes to Mark Perlin. Why?
More of Rat’s opinion on Mark Perlin:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/NewsAnagrams/status/1128921982978813952
DeleteTina @NewsAnagrams
Replying to @may_shazzy @xxSiLverdoexx
The John Lowe/FFS report is a result of cover-up & protection of #mccanns
8:15 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128933382115581952
Shazzy May @may_shazzy
Replying to @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx
I suspect so. Dr Perlin can sort it out. He spoke respectfully of the Lowe Report. Technology in 2007 didnt have the ability to decipher DNA data. Dr Perlin is a true professional and a diplomatic man. #mccann
9:01 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128978754238373888
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx
A “true professional” man would be speaking to the ACTUAL jurisdictional custodians of the evidence, professionally, and not through the media via a circus of expressly McCann Sympathist orchestration. A “true professional” would know precisely that offering consultative advice
12:01 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128979185882599424
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 2 others
to an investigation to propose, at least, that an independent forensic laboratory of the investigation’s choice could be commissioned and directed by means of advice offered by himself.
He ought to know that the non-jurisdictional non-custodians of the evidence have no authority
12:03 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128979632714387457
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 2 others
to handover anything to him, and that professional investigators will be suspicious of any individual championing their own services and pushing for involvement on their own term, in a media circus, on a case and in a jurisdiction which is nothing to do with him. That’s “chain
12:04 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128980481482088448
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 2 others
of custody” and the security of an ongoing investigation.
It is impossible to verify that Mr Perlin is not a corrupt or compromised agent attempting to gain access to the evidential record, and as such a truly professional investigation will decide for themselves which forensic
12:08 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128987877226889218
Shazzy May @may_shazzy
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx
Dr Perlin has an exemplary reputation and proven results in his field of DNA science.
12:37 PM - 16 May 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128991691627745281
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams @xxSiLverdoexx
Dr Perlin has his own reputation, and it is whatever his paying clients pay for.
This is science.
There are no celebrities, no heroes, and someone is always driving the cutting edge with something newer and better.
The whole notion that “Dr Perlin” should be known and admired
12:52 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1128992100857647105
SheLLxx 💯 🦌 xxSilverdoexx @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams
He offered the tests 'for free' 🙄🙄
12:54 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128992647840968705
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @may_shazzy @NewsAnagrams
As do snake oil salesmen.
If you had the faintest clue how serious the chain of custody is and how critical the integrity of the process in question is, you’d realise that the offer of a “free one” isn’t even remotely tempting to a serious police investigation.
It wouldn’t,
12:56 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128993201833107456
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others
most likely, be legal or admissible.
It would be interpreted by a defence lawyer as a commercial compromise - a short cut or a less than impartial exercise prompted by cost saving...
Let me repeat...
IF - and it’s a big “IF” the samples need any more analysis than they’ve had
12:58 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128993672572428290
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others
and that is to say that doing so might add something more meaningful to the possibility of prosecution, the PJ have already done it, or have a plan on where to do it.
And “Perlin” is still a media circus provoking a professional investigation to pull media circus stunts and
1:00 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128993792093294597
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others
compromise the integrity of their own investigation.
1:01 PM - 16 May 2019
The Rat who is alright with the dogs, is terrified with what Mark Perlin may offer...
DeleteIsn't that so interesting?
(Have the readers recognised the writing style yet? The arrogance, the "only-I-know" attitude?)
So we have a scientist not interested in modern science now then eh! How very convenient. The lad's had more fake personas than Howard Marks!
DeleteSo who is it?
DeleteAnd look at this beauty from the Rat:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/may_shazzy/status/1128840785024053248
Shazzy May @may_shazzy
Replying to @Cerb32 @regretkay and 34 others
And just quietly, at the same time, he [Mark Perlin] could test for anything else if he is given information as to what to look for, i.e. genetic disorders, syndromes and toxicology. Do you agree Cerb, that Dr Perlin has the goods to put this annoying case to rest?
2:53 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128921070403313664
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @may_shazzy @Cerb32 and 34 others
No he doesn’t, and he shouldn’t either.
Giving the process to some unverifiable yahoo who wants a media circus and to play the hero is not the way to get transparency OR move the issue on.
Do you realise...
It wouldn’t matter what Dr Mark Penguin discovered...
You would never
8:12 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128921583328911360
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 35 others
know what it is, if you did, it would never be admissable in court, and it would still be insufficient for a prosecution and thus would have to be withheld from release, while Portugal continue waiting to find a body, or get a testimony of illicit knowledge or an admission.
8:14 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/DuskatChristie/status/1129170384215896064
SunsetChristie @DuskatChristie
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @may_shazzy and 35 others
Even if it wasn't admissible in court, because of the case being so high profile, Perlin's reputation is on the line & the whole world would be wanting to know the results.
12:42 AM - 17 May 2019
******
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129172611747975169
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @DuskatChristie @may_shazzy and 35 others
And he couldn’t breathe a word, and it would be none of the public’s business, and a court injunction would be placed on it, and secrecy would be imposed and it would be a giant messy media circus that Perlin should have had the good sense to avoid instigating or perpetuating.
12:51 AM - 17 May 2019
To all those demanding the staff should have broken ranks a long time ago, the Rat answers above exactly why only an unconscious idiot would do that.
DeleteUmmm can Ismail A Rat please explain why, after 12 years missing, millions of pounds spent and donated to find this little girl, that you are saying “it” would be none of the public’s business. Would “it” mean Perlin’s findings? So if you are saying a court injunction would be placed on the results (you sound very positive about that), then that tells me there is something very important to hide here. Something no-one else should know about. A secret so huge, that you mention “there would be a giant messy media circus that Perlin should have had the good sense to avoid instigating or perpetuating.”. However if an abduction had taken place, wouldn’t the parents want to know if the DNA was Madeleines, who else was in that Scenic and that Apt 5A – to identify anyone who was there – to bring them to justice ? The fact that there has been absolutely NO response to Dr Perlin, speaks volumes to me.
DeleteThe Rat trying to join Mark Perlin’s offer with the Netflix fiasco:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1120818611550072832
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @saunokonoko
And given that the Netflix documentary was produced by McCann apologists who framed it to fake the appearance of an objective overview with token criticism and a few “WTF” moments, how can you state conclusively that the same apologists are not behind Perlin’s sudden Messiah-like
11:35 PM - 23 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1125126310311993346
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @beemmjay2011 @56cheffy @skymartinbrunt
“Mark Perlin’s offer” is a non-starter.
Credible police investigations don’t hand evidence over to media circus yahoo’s to “have a lash” at doing something with....
It would be inadmissable in court.
It’s a side show.
A media circus.
By the Netflix documentary makers.
8:53 PM - 5 May 2019
I must admit to holding a suspicion of Mark Perlins offer....had visions of it being accepted then resulting in an unknown predators dna being discovered clearing the Macs.....
DeleteBampots
No way is a scientist like Perlin with a reputation to consider going to be party to faking results.
DeleteHis business depends on being able to withstand legal challenges from the lawyers of accused parties.
From FB Anon:
Delete“https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16637380
Result of trial-Perlin’s evidence accepted but 1 defendant acquitted due to insufficient evidence to link him to the murder.
Rat’s assertion that chain of custody would be broken if Perlin has access to the DNA is nonsense. All the prosecution would need is a statement from the police officer who delivered the samples to Perlin & a statement from Perlin’s office to say they were received.”
For McCann internet commenters to believe Dr Perlin's possible future retesting will solve the case, they also have to believe that the orchestrators of the hoax are stupid.
ReplyDeleteThis is a promise, there will be no DNA or other evidence belonging to Madeleine from 5A or the hire car. Anyone who doesn't believe this doesn't understand the case or the talents of the people involved.
Getting overly exited regarding Dr Perlin's offer will only lead to disappointment, if he ever has the opportunity he will find nothing.
To believe otherwise proves people haven't the slightest clue about the complicated hoax which concealed the truth of the heartbreaking tragedy.
At the root of it is simplicity, everything else is mere window dressing and marketing, 'not bad for a bunch of amateurs' as John McCann so proudly asserted.
Only time well tell, so let's just wait and see...
*Excited*, not exited. Apologies!
DeleteAnonymous 18 May 2019, 18:05:00,
DeleteWe have no reason to not believe and trust in Mark Perlin’s professionalism and in the results he proposes to offer. That means that if the samples do end up in his hands, whatever results he produces are what they should be.
The only way to stop the truth of those results is not letting the samples reach his hands.
In one thing which is evident is that him helping in a case with a profile as high as Maddie’s, it would only help his reputation. In fact, the fact that he has offered his services, has meant that his name is now known and he hasn’t had to do anything besides standing firm with his offer.
One thing the Rat is wrong, at least according with what we have been told. Mark Perlin did not seek any media circus.
As far as we know the offer was made in 2018 and we only got to know about this offer this year. Accusing Mark Perlin of doing things via media circus, is simply false.
The Rat on paedophilia, again apparently absolutely correct but can the reader spot where he pursues his agenda?
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/ciabaudo/status/1126714325463212033
DeleteDame Alun Roberts @ciabaudo
Replying to @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
Yes, Clement Freud is a very weird and sinister character. Interesting that he shared business interests with Mitchell.
6:03 AM - 10 May 2019 from Rietberg, Deutschland
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126792046373687296
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
Every angle must be ruled out, but to be fair nothing in the case speaks of “pedophiles” in the camp...
The account does tell a story of very immature and selfish parenting and individuals, and inappropriate or unsavoury behaviour.
But keep both feet on the ground... if the
11:12 AM - 10 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126792795547668480
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
statement and a blank file are all indicative of some grave and depraved crime being covered up, then why haven’t they been covered up or deleted entirely?
A high level cover up doesn’t gamble on leaving unburned evidence behind in the ashes, or leaving a key to the secure lock
11:15 AM - 10 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126793417323945985
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
box lying around.
Instead it appears more like the efforts to “overlook” have nothing to do with real criminals committing real crimes in rings or otherwise, but rather simply taking something that would prejudice an investigation unfairly, or even just create a media storm, out
11:17 AM - 10 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126793610635108352
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
of reach to those who would try to make a meal of it.
It wouldn’t have been admissible in a prosecution anyway.
11:18 AM - 10 May 2019
*****
(Tweet from mccannscamexpo account that has been suspended)
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126806264716111873
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
And that’s super for you.
I simply prefer for what’s knowable and evidentially supportable.
The Gaspar Statements cannot be tested. They are hearsay and one contradicts the gravity of the other, as might be expected if an over-sensitive wife “went off on one” over something
12:08 PM - 10 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126806740593463296
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
tasteless but misconstrued. As I said, they are materially worthless, cannot even be entered into record in a prosecution, but they are valuable as a demonstration of the reckless dynamic at work in that extended group.
Yvonne Martin’s statement is even less compelling than the
12:10 PM - 10 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126807138641371136
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
“Smithman” testimony. A gut reaction. A feeling. A sense of deja vu. Trapped wind and a light head.
Worthless.
Yvonne Martin did not follow up her encounter and discussion with the PJ by coming back to them having trawled all her records and spoken to everyone she knew, and
12:12 PM - 10 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126807503067648001
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
proving that the individual in question was known and had form. Further still, your contention depends on the presumption that every police officer and prosecutor that had encountered the individual was part of a conspiracy of silence intended to not only distance him, but cover
12:13 PM - 10 May 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126808338900107267
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
up his involvement in the matter. The case has lots of scope for mistakes, for “following orders”, for being gullible, for believing the best and then trying to save face... but with zero whistleblowers and zero evidence of anything but interference for political purpose, not
12:16 PM - 10 May 2019
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126808698872111104
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
only does the evidence not support a supreme master conspiracy, but if there had have been one, it wouldn’t have done such a piss poor job of leaving such a messy trail of fuel for the fire of suspicion.
“Professionals” actually do the job.
12:18 PM - 10 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126809342420897794
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
The idea that the child was in a demised state in the apartment is not a risky one. Scotland Yard already had significant enough belief that they confirmed they were considering that conclusion.
The dog alerts. The indicia of there having been a significantly destructive
12:20 PM - 10 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126810146003406850
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
cleaning regime in operation there, not to mention the bizarre behaviour going on during the initial hours, all cast the principals in that group in a light of suspicion, as does the pact, the torn up book, the washing of the soft toy, the upstairs neighbour’s testimony...
12:24 PM - 10 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1126810506759634945
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @mccannscamexpos @saunokonoko
There’s what we know and can piece together with the evidence. And then there’s trivia, speculation and the wildest theories of all.
12:25 PM - 10 May 2019
Note how the Rat throws in the Smith Sighting, discrediting it, together with the paedophilia clutter.
DeleteWhat is the relationship between the Smith Sighting and paedo? Absolutely none. So why speak of one when speaking of the other?
And now the Rat about himself and on various topics:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/stevano_b/status/1121546367636262912
DeleteSteve James /one @stevano_b
Replying to @stevano_b @McCannCaseTweet and 2 others
He’s [the Rat] fresh on Twitter & it’s a novelty for him.He’s practicing his big words & having mini orgasms I think 🤫😛
11:47 PM - 25 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121694103522115584
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @stevano_b @McCannCaseTweet @bullinamingvas1
See, that’s what I mean about “conspiracy theorists.”
Can never deal wih simply what’s objectively relevant.
Always need to draw reference to the misleading and trivial, to make fantastical assumptions about it, to weave it into an assumptive narrative, in order to turn it into
9:34 AM - 26 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121694570176307200
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others
an ad hominem attack, or juvenile gossip, as their means of controlling the narrative, or holding court with their fellow delusionals, and maintaining a position in which they are held in high esteem, rather than being seen for being full of shit.
9:36 AM - 26 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121695596874801152
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others
So...
Am I fresh on Twitter?
9 years.
So, no.
Is it a novelty for me?
Oh, Lord, no. I’ve been a seasoned veteran of issues far bigger than this for yeeeeears.
And I’ve been a veteran of this tag for years too. Since before “Walkercan” had to keep changing socks.
Since
9:40 AM - 26 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121696250389323776
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others
before Brenda. Since being able to explain “The Last Photo” looking like a “Photoshop” to someone with fuck all experience in digital photo compositing could get you barred from the online stomping ground of certain sacred goats, or cows...
Since before it became a qualification
9:43 AM - 26 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121696898027544576
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others
for holding an opinion on this case that one had to accept “swinging” as the sole raison d’etre for this resort to exist.
And really, getting your rocks off to any aspect of this case is a pretty disturbing thing. Picturing someone getting their rocks off to any aspect of this
9:45 AM - 26 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121697173412954112
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others
case as an infantile attempt at an ad hominem is just creepy.
9:47 AM - 26 Apr 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1121697464002797574
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @stevano_b and 2 others
“Practicing my big words.”
Oh, I’d say I’m well practiced already, Chuckles.
Putting them to good use now.
Does it get you rattled, sunshine?
9:48 AM - 26 Apr 2019
How similar is “sunshine” to “sunbeam”?
DeleteWe would say if one adds “Chuckles” to “sunshine” we would say one definitely get a “sunbeam”, isn’t it?
For the Rat to believe in the swinging theory is to be a lunatic. To say the last photo was tampered with is dim. Sound familiar?
And now, for something completely different… the Rat and this about EVRD dogs (be prepared for a surprise, a big surprise):
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128719046919245824
DeleteCerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
You're very naive. Dogs operate at the level of 3 year olds and regard searches as a game with hopefully a reward at the end of it. They are perfectly capable of giving a false alert if they have had enough of the game: Eddie alerting to the clothes for example. #mccann
6:49 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128768971396849673
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
No, EVRD’s do not give “false alerts” if they “tire of the game.”
To do such would denote a calculated choice on the part of the dog, and an act of deliberate fraud.
They don’t demonstrate either.
10:07 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128780518940643329
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
Like I said, you've very naive about how dogs behave. They operate at the same level as 3 or 4 year old children. #mccann
10:53 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128790080271921154
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @BourgeoisViews and 34 others
They’re utterly fucking incomparable.
11:31 PM - 15 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/MrDelorean2/status/1128925753305903104
Mr Delorean @MrDelorean2
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 34 others
I suggest you go and share that insight with the American Psychological Association, or any of the other scientific bodies that have made that comparison then.🙄
#mccann
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025241.htm
8:30 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128929338118856704
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @MrDelorean2 @Cerb32 and 34 others
I’ll happily do that and I’m sure I’m not alone.
And you’re the proof of why this incomparable comparison is so detrimental.
You’ve used the claim to discredit EVRD and detection dogs as being of diminished intelligence and therefore untrustworthy, professionally problematic
8:45 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128930582052909056
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others
creatures.
The author is using it as an expression of how much more intelligent than previously thought dogs actually are.
Two polar opposite conclusions from the same problematic statement.
Not to mention the fact that in the years since the APA gave a hearing to this
8:49 AM - 16 May 2019
(Cont)
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128931421341573120
DeleteIsmail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others
anthropomorphisation exercise, more specialist sniffer dogs are deployed, more agencies use and invest heavily in them, more deployments as front line detection methods in mission-critical environments, increasing proof of ability, intensified training to push into new fields,
8:53 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128932145622331392
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others
increased dependence. So either the research in question is flawed or misleading, or it doesn’t mean what you imply it means and in fact actually affirms the abilities of the dogs - but either way, it seems no one is demonstrating anything except increasing dependence on the
8:56 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128932664306819074
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others
efficacy of the dogs.
In the meanwhile I’ll await one of two justifications of your attempted use of this argument...
You can show me how the blind now no longer cross the road at the prompt of their sight dog due to grave fears over the predilection of these fractious
8:58 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128933236527292416
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others
creatures for playing tricksy and engaging in scampery in order to satisfy their boredom with following routine...
Or you can show me the 2-3 year old human bomb detectors currently working the Queen’s security detail.
See, had I been in the debate, and I’m sure someone else
9:00 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128934307626725376
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others
has done it, I would have suggested that drawing comparisons between infants and dogs was unhelpful, and noted that the ability of dogs to maintain trained professional function for prolonged periods placed them far beyond 2-3 year old humans.
But you can always ask the military
9:04 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128934527659859968
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 35 others
dog handlers if they wouldn’t be better with a couple of toddlers...
9:05 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1128963827268313088
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 34 others
Dogs can do many things better than 3 year old children. "During play, dogs are capable of deliberately trying to deceive other dogs and people in order to get rewards. And they are nearly as successful in deceiving humans as humans are in deceiving dogs." #mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6rinH0XsAYuXOG.jpg
11:02 AM - 16 May 2019
[Picture attached says:
“Science News from research organizations
Dogs' Intelligence On Par With Two-year-old Human, Canine Researcher Says
Date: August 10, 2009
Source: American Psychological Association
Summary: Although you wouldn't want one to balance your checkbook, dogs can count. They can also understand more than 150 words, and intentionally deceive other dogs and people to get treats, according to a psychologist and leading canine researcher.”]
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128973124123451393
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @MrDelorean2 and 34 others
And that’s precisely where the science swerves at a 90 degree tangent to the bizarre pseudo-science of animalxpsychology, because “deceit” is a human trait as we understand it, involving conscience, rationale and decision-making calculations.
What the human might perceive as
11:39 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1128974296053899264
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others
interwebs and now wields said piece in complete ignorance of the rest of the available data.
The article, after all, represents nothing more than a singular researcher’s opinion piece.
It fails to cite the most critical of requirements for “scientific research.”
Specifics.
11:43 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Esjabe1/status/1129012120752939011
💙 єѕנαвє 💛 @Esjabe1
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 34 others
Specifics are: Dogs don’t recognize deceit as such, per se, but rather a means to an end, a solution to a problem, or how to get a treat/reward. ABC...123
2:14 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129016562340552704
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Esjabe1 @Cerb32 and 34 others
Right...
So...
Martin Grime rewards the dog in training if they affirm the cadaver scent in the right location...
And then he rewards the dog if they “make a false alert.”
So Martin Grime is stupid...
And the dogs alert arbitrarily...
And get rewarded for error...
And so
2:31 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129016721640218624
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 35 others
pretend to alert...
to get a treat...
Why aren’t they alerting far more regularly then?
2:32 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129017199014883328
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 35 others
And when is a professional agency going to recognise the fatal multi million dollar flaw in this methodology, that the dogs just alert for treats, like popping money in a candy dispenser...?
2:34 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129017508864958464
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 35 others
And is it proven that all dogs do this? Even trained sniffer dogs? Where is the scientific methodology to establish this documented and tested?
2:35 PM - 16 May 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129110733495644160
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 34 others
Grime said that most false positives are due to handler cueing. That's why search protocols are put in place, which Grime ignored. Dogs read our body language extremely well. IMO, the alerts to #mccann clothes were false positives in response to subconscious cues from Grime.
8:45 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/maxine68711804/status/1129113384794902528
✂️S N I P S ✂️ @maxine68711804
Replying to @Cerb32 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others
Let me get this straight - you think that all of Eddies cadaver alerts were false ? All of them ? All in the car all in kates clothes and all in the apartment . So you are saying Eddie systematically failed every time ? Is that what you are trying to sell me ?
8:56 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129311864876425216
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @maxine68711804 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others
Eddie alert to microscopic traces of cellular material in 5A - true. Eddie non specific alert to wardrobe in bedroom - true but nobody knows what he was alerting to. That doesn't stop anti #mccann s speculating. Eddie alerts to clothes and Cuddle Cat - false.
10:05 AM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129330820089618433
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @maxine68711804 and 34 others
What’s a “non specific” alert to a wardrobe in a bedroom?
Sounds fairly specific to me.
“Wardrobe” presumably doesn’t mean “somewhere in the room” does it?
Are you suggesting the cadaver that had obviously been in the cupboard at some time prior to the McCann’s arrival was at
11:20 AM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129330973294903296
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others
a height and Eddie failed to flap his ears fast enough to hover right at that point?
11:21 AM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129331479786377216
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others
Let’s establish somehing, because I don’t like all the implications that I’m an “anti McCann” and stupid to boot...
The dog is a cadaver detection EVRD.
It doesn’t alert to nothing.
It alerts to presence of cadaver residue. Not something blown in the wind, but actual particles
11:23 AM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129332715029975042
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 35 others
from oily secretion bonded to surfaces.
And I honestly don’t give a toss about who gets convicted for what.
But what I want to know is which Fokkers have been making or taking dead bodies with them on holiday on the Algarve and how is no one noticing?
Airport security don’t
11:27 AM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129332715029975042
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @maxine68711804 and 32 others
Have you read Grime's report to the PJ? Beginning to think you're idle, Rat 👿. There were no oily secretions in the wardrobe. An unknown odour pooled in the bedroom due to air movements in the apartment. I have noticed the same when slaughtering piglets in my kitchen. #mccann
11:43 AM - 17 May 2019
“The dog is a cadaver detection EVRD. It doesn’t alert to nothing. It alerts to presence of cadaver residue. Not something blown in the wind, but actual particles from oily secretion bonded to surfaces”.
DeleteOh, how some must be feeling like fools. If they aren’t then it only shows they are bigger fools than the Rat has shown them to be.
But we know they are feeling the fools they are.
To our recent readers, who may not be understanding the magnitude of what the Rat has said above, the blog has always defended that the cadaver scent that the EVRD dogs alerts to comes from an emitting source left in place by the corpse, or as the Rat puts it “actual particles from oily secretion bonded to surfaces”, and so it determines the location of where the body has been as the EVRD dog “alerts to presence of cadaver residue”.
For the defending the above, the blog has been viciously attacked by our opponents (and we’re not talking about pros like Cerb, who we have never interacted with) who have defended that the body leaves no such trace and that the cadaver scent is just gas released by the body directly into the air while in place – they clearly state there is no oily secretion – and when the body is taken away, the only “residue” it leaves are the airborne molecules of said scent hanging in the air, “something blown in the wind”.
What a precious moment. What a precious, precious moment.
We don’t want to draw attention away from the Rat but have to call the attention of our readers to the latest article from Mark S:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-what-we-learned-in-maddie-podcast/f43be997-1692-4146-9c68-3ce5dd8bf375
It covers the main events. We will bring it over to blog soon, but as we said, we don’t want to take the pressure off the Rat and his mateys.
We’ll however bring over the first 2 paragraphs of the article:
“It's remarkable to think that a double PhD holder quietly living in Pittsburgh, USA, a man who has never set foot in Portugal, could be the one capable of triggering the biggest breakthrough in the Madeleine McCann cold case in a decade.
What's maybe even more remarkable is that the UK's largest police force appear disinterested in allowing world-leading DNA expert Dr Mark Perlin to intervene in the Madeleine mystery.”
And now the Rat’s take on Mark Perlin’s offer:
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130040025008234496
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @andyLUHGNW3427 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others
Let’s attempt an exercise...
Why would the PJ - who have the ONLY authority and jurisdiction in the ongoing case - EVER find it necessary or even helpful to take up Perlin’s astonishing sideshow?
10:18 AM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/andyLUHGNW3427/status/1130040792528162816
andy @andyLUHGNW3427
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others
Yes why wouldn't they?
10:21 AM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130056298958073862
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @andyLUHGNW3427 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others
Why wouldn’t they?
Because 1. The results would be argued straight out of ever being admissable in court. Perlin’s inexplicable enthusiasm for involvement represents a media show and a prejudicial position.
2. Doing so would be on the demands of the baying public, and the baying
11:23 AM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130056858285293570
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others
public can’t have the results, so they’ll keep baying.
3. If someone offers the service, for free, as an act of wanting involvement, the process isn’t transparent or professional. Perlin isn’t “the best” and he isn’t “the only” not is he local to the PJ.
4. You’re assuming the
11:25 AM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130057250687651841
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others
samples aren’t retested already by a European lab.
5. Why would you ever hear about the results if they had been?
6. Anything extraordinarily public tagged on to the investigation is a circus... not discreet, not professional and not secret, therefore not able to be the basis of
11:26 AM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130057301501652992
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others
a prosecution.
11:27 AM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1130061260928757761
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 33 others
Well argued, Rat 👿. #mccann
11:42 AM - 19 May 2019
*****
We guess people on Twitter will just have to put up with the Rat as we have had to for so many years up to now…
🙄
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hello Textusa, I'm somewhat confused as to a particular aspect of the case, and if you would kindly shed some light I will highly appreciate it. If you don't mind, why would the British contingent be so supportive of the McCanns and their abduction narrative, yet Martin Grime and Mark Harrison considered to be impartial?
ReplyDeleteAre you absolutely sure both of the above-mentioned aren't part of the abduction hoax? Why would two genuine and trustworthy people be allowed to slip through the net?
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, not to me at least, for such a British-led and controlled situation it simply doesn't jibe.
Personally, I don't trust either of them.
https://twitter.com/andyLUHGNW3427/status/1130057285689065472
ReplyDeleteandy @andyLUHGNW3427
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others
How could they [Mark Perlin’s results] be argued out of court? The first results were apparently inconclusive becasue they couldn't fully determine the results, with new technology it's now possible. Or do we have to stick to inconclusive results from a testing lab that had a conflict of interest?
11:27 AM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130151175372906496
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @andyLUHGNW3427 @Natalie01016290 and 33 others
“We” don’t have to stick to anything.
And the Lowe/FSS report, in the right hands, says far more than the use of the word “inconclusive” has been used to imply.
The document may address tests which are “inconclusive” but “conclusiveness” isn’t the only evidence...
Remember,
5:40 PM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130152054595497984
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others
that these are the same voices that tell you what you can infer from dog alerts, yet the dog alerts have not been tossed on a scrap heap.
Also never forget that this inadequacy of evidence was not created by PJ ineptitude - it was created by someone thoroughly cleaning the crime
5:43 PM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130162818718814210
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others
scene.
Anything detected by blood dog is blood. Anything detected by cadaver dog is localised in the same place as a body has been present. That might not be conclusive... but it is real. When we say “unsolved” we’re playing a waiting game for further evidence or a new technique
6:26 PM - 19 May 2019
*****
Brilliant, simply brilliant: “Anything detected by blood dog is blood. Anything detected by cadaver dog is localised in the same place as a body has been present. That might not be conclusive... but it is real”
The Rat then goes on to invent reasons why Mark Perlin’s results but then he is being his old self: what I say is, regardless of reality because I said it was, and I said it with such a certainty that no one dare question what I say it was just because I said it was.
The Rat, to prove his point, all he has to do is to show a case where a scientific report was rejected by a Portuguese court because it was too involved in a “media circus”.
If he doesn’t, he is just, however strongly, however adamantly, expressing a wishful thinking.
Obviously, Mark Perlin’s results would be accepted in court.
From FB Anon:
Delete“I see the Rat is still insisting that any evidence from Perlin world be ruled inadmissible. Firstly he/she said it was because of chain of custody, now he seems to be suggesting it’s because Perlin is trying to ‘spike the process’ whatever that means. Dr. Perlin has had his evidence accepted by a British court, so why is the Rat so adamant that it wouldn’t be accepted in this case?”
https://twitter.com/all_i_wont/status/1130068968146898945
ReplyDeleteMarisco @all_i_wont
Replying to @andyLUHGNW3427 @IsmailARat5 and 34 others
Bang on, particularly at a lab which has been discredited many times. Amaral said the Portuguese were too trusting of the British. Anyway, I am certain that the test won't show that it is not her DNA - 15/20 is enough to convict in some places.
12:13 PM - 19 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130168542219952129
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @all_i_wont @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others
Precisely...
15/20 is enough to convict in some places.
But would 20/20 be enough to convict in Portugal?
Portuguese law is hamstrung by having no principal crime to charge with...
They have no body.
They have no witnesses to a body.
Does it really matter what DNA is
6:49 PM - 19 May 2019
*****
The Rat and his wishful thinking.
According, to the Rat the result would come back and it would be confirmed that it was Maddie’s DNA in the Scenic but because there was no body and no witnesses to a body, the Portuguese would just say, sorry, we can’t do anything about it.
Ermmm… Joana Cipriano?
Yes, it does really matter what DNA is.
We apologise to our readers for persisting in showing how the Rat is defending to the hilt the position the blog has defended for years on the EVRD dog and the cadaver scent in the Maddie case – whilst being viciously attacked and insulted for having done so – but we think that after this the time has come for us to ask a question:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Millsyj73/status/1128946364195459072
DeleteJason mills 🦊 💙 @Millsyj73
Replying to @Esjabe1 @IsmailARat5 and 47 others
It’s ok. Idiots of #MASBO claim that the dogs gave false alerts to every single alert they made on the #mccann case. SEVENTEEN was it? Hmmm yeah all wrong. Apparently 😂😂😂😂😂🙈
9:52 AM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Esjabe1/status/1129025583873175555
💙 єѕנαвє 💛 @Esjabe1
FollowFollow @Esjabe1
More
Replying to @Millsyj73 @IsmailARat5 and 47 others
Not “the dogs”, the perception that all of Eddie’s alerts were “cadaver” when he also alerted to dried blood from living humans. The unsupported alerts, i.e., KM’s clothes & Cuddle Cat (all retuned immediately), we’re false alerts & likely the presence of menstrual blood scent.
3:07 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129034292670156801
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Esjabe1 @Millsyj73 and 47 others
How can you prove he was “alerting to dried blood from living humans” and not trace “cadaver” compounds?
Which “living humans” and where?
And if he alerts so indiscriminately to dried blood from living humans, why is he deployed as a cadaver dog?
Also, are you contending that
3:42 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129034660154159112
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 48 others
in the whole of the Ocean Club there were no other traces of dried blood from living humans? No... say... mosquito bites? Grazes from rock climbing? Nothing else for Eddie to alert to?
3:43 PM - 16 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Cerb32/status/1129103835627233281
Cerb32 @Cerb32
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Esjabe1 and 47 others
Grime states quite clearly that Eddie could alert to dried blood from a live human being #mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6th80BWkAE5Vbk.jpg
8:18 PM - 16 May 2019
[Picture attached to the tweet says:
“…made by the dog.
‘The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or also from a cadaver’
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for ‘live’ human odours; no trained dog will recognise the smell of fresh blood’. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.”]
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129381523818516480
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @Cerb32 @Esjabe1 and 47 others
No, actually. That’s not what he said.
He clearly addresses generalisms about how detection dogs are trained in that area of specialisation, and what detection dogs are able to detect as a result of that training.
“No trained dog will...”
...alert to fresh blood because all
2:41 PM - 17 May 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129382154771861505
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 48 others
their training is geared to dried blood and, as appropriate and relevant, a specialisation - in “Eddie’s” case, his deployment indicates his specialisation is cadaver compound detection.
Are you suggesting that the dogs are deployed so arbitrarily that the handler isn’t ever
2:44 PM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129382718586916867
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 48 others
sure what the dog will tune into on any given day which in turn fatally handicaps the investigation using the dog as what you’re saying is that the dog in question might sit and bark at a blood soaked plaster lying three inches below the soil, that in turn is six feet above a
2:46 PM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129383191863799808
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 48 others
severed human head, which never gets unearthed because the handler thinks “oh shit... he’s in bloody plaster mode again... I hope he doesn’t embarrass me with a used tampon again...”
Doesn’t seem right, does it.
Scientific, legally grave, court admitted methodology...
2:48 PM - 17 May 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129384038454714369
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @Cerb32 and 48 others
No, definitely the dogs are trained far more specifically than that.
2:51 PM - 17 May 2019
And the question we want to ask is this:
DeleteWhy haven’t Mr Thompson and Sade Anslow engaged with the Rat on this? He is saying what we have said, isn’t he?
When we said what the Rat is now saying, both jumped in very quickly – one of them even wrote a blog post “explaining” how wrong we were – but the Rat goes on days on end about it and from them we have only had an absolute and total silence. Why?
From unpublished comments we have received, Mr Thompson has shown he’s fully aware of what the Rat is saying.
And the Rat is exactly where they complain we are not: on Twitter!
Shouldn’t they have jumped at this opportunity to prove all their enormous knowledge about the dogs?
Why their deafening silence? Why aren’t they challenging the Rat?
Are they recognising the Rat is right on this? Are they recognising they were wrong and we were right?
By the way, has anyone seen JBLittlemore? We’re just asking because he was, together with Mr Thompson and Nick Townsend (remember him?) one of the Twitter Wonder Trio on the dogs about a year ago!
Perhaps JBLittlemore is writing up the scripts for the Rat?? Notice how they seem to be all scissors and paste - well prepared and rehearsed. All tweeted to himself, as if to hermetically seal-off major interruptions or disagreements. Plenty of room for slipping in a counter-narrative. Those engaged seem to be people that don't frequent the McCann tag regularly; perhaps they've been gathered or hand-picked from somewhere? I'm sure Rat and friends were hoping that no one would notice. But that didn't work, did it?
DeleteComments that we have received/seen from Mr Thompson on this subject, in chronological order.
DeleteOn NT’s blog:
“Pseudo Nym20 May 2019 at 00:25
Could I leave this latest comment from textusa here please, matey? The lunatic is begging for my attention. I'll quote his parts and interject with my thoughts.
"And the question we want to ask is this:
Why haven’t Mr Thompson and Sade Anslow engaged with the Rat on this? He is saying what we have said, isn’t he?"
The internet is a big place, does he seriously expect me to challenge everyone who is wrong about the dogs?
"When we said what the Rat is now saying, both jumped in very quickly – one of them even wrote a blog post “explaining” how wrong we were – but the Rat goes on days on end about it and from them we have only had an absolute and total silence. Why?"
Because textusa lifted my tweet thinking he could make a fool of me. When I replied I showed the useless blogger up for having absolutely no knowledge of the dogs and proved what I was saying based upon fact.
"From unpublished comments we have received, Mr Thompson has shown he’s fully aware of what the Rat is saying."
Textusa has received no comments from me with regards to this latest account they're obsessing over.
"And the Rat is exactly where they complain we are not: on Twitter!"
Nobody complains Swingstein is not on Twitter. I've stated they're a coward for hiding behind their blog, editing or not publishing replies to their questions.
"Shouldn’t they have jumped at this opportunity to prove all their enormous knowledge about the dogs?"
It's one person, I have a life, dickface should get one as well.
"Why their deafening silence? Why aren’t they challenging the Rat?"
At this point textusa is rolling around in a nappy, banging their fists on the floor and wailing.
"Are they recognising the Rat is right on this? Are they recognising they were wrong and we were right?"
Nope, textusa is wrong about the dogs. Finding an account that is also wrong doesn't make textusa right.
"By the way, has anyone seen JBLittlemore? We’re just asking because he was, together with Mr Thompson and Nick Townsend (remember him?) one of the Twitter Wonder Trio on the dogs about a year ago!"
JBL is a busy person. By busy I don't mean sat in a chair, stalking people, obsessing over them and inventing weird stories about Marks and Spencer cards and secret agents.
Here's a link to my blog that shows textusa to be absolutely wrong about Eddie and Keela. If this Rat person agrees with textusa, then he/she is wrong as well.
(censored, as we refuse to promote filth in the blog)”
In our blog:
“Pseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "The protection of the McCanns by José António Sara...":
You have received no comments from me regarding this latest Twitter account you're banging on about. Stop lying.
Do you think I spend my time correcting everyone on Twitter? I've said my piece and proved you to be wrong. Quoting some random on Twitter will not make you right.
Posted by Pseudo Nym to Textusa at 19 May 2019, 23:33:00”
And:
“Pseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "The protection of the McCanns by José António Sara...":
Isn't it strange how you never publish my actual comments, but someone comments from an anonymous account and you'll fire the comment up and lie about it being me. You're such a dirty little fraud.
Posted by Pseudo Nym to Textusa at 20 May 2019, 11:32:00”
*****
Mr Thompson,
We have withheld your comments because we wanted to confirm how scared you are in facing the Rat on Twitter.
Your replies published above confirm you having been given a heads up and your silence on Twitter shows you ran from defending your position on the EVRD dog on your preferred platform, Twitter.
The Rat has not seen any of his tweets being challenged by you.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteWe wrote a comment and you felt we deserved an entire post (oddly not promoted on Justice) and the Rat has by now written thousands of words on the subject and you (and Sade) remain silent.
A completely different attitude from the one you had when Nick Townsend appeared last year also on the topic of the dogs. Then, you didn’t hesitate for a minute.
Also, you don’t hesitate for a minute to jump in on those who agree with us, so why not jump on the Rat as he agrees with us on the EVRD dog and the cadaver residues, both which you have shown to strongly disagree with?
You say you have no time, yet you have time to go hide behind NotTextusa’s skirts. Why didn’t you take the issue to Twitter for all and the Rat to read, as it would take you the exact same time?
Meanwhile you also have had the time to tweet all about Gamble and Nessling’s paedophilia.
By the way, we are very curious about what NotTextusa’s reaction will be to your comment in his blog.
Will he ignore you and the Rat? Will he focus his reply solely on us and ignore the Rat? Will he give an opinion on the Rat? If he does, we are very curious about what he will have to say… you have put NotTextusa in a very difficult position, you have put him in a no-win situation, whatever he does (or has done, we don’t know).
Why don’t you on Twitter give the Rat a link to your post where you say you have proved us wrong and let him read and say whatever the Rat feels he has to say about it? Let that post undergo his scrutiny. How many seconds of your time would that take away from you? Why are you so scared of the Rat?
If you argue that you don’t go on Twitter against the Rat because Cerb has done all the talking for you, then we have nothing to say. It is true that your position on the EVRD dog alerts is totally in synch with Cerb, the Frog and Esjabe, all known and undisguised pros.
Of course, it was noted how soft you went against the Rat in your comment: “Nope, textusa is wrong about the dogs. Finding an account that is also wrong doesn't make textusa right” and “The internet is a big place, does he [Textusa] seriously expect me to challenge everyone who is wrong about the dogs?”. Poor Nick Townsend for having the bad luck to have caught you in the mood to challenge that day, weeks and months…
You only mention the Rat’s name at the end of you comment on NotTextusa but “en-passant”: “If this Rat person agrees with textusa, then he/she is wrong as well.”
Are you that scared of the Rat? Why?
Everyone who has accompanied the blog in the past year has read you demanding we go on Twitter countless times. You denying this just exposed your usual tactic of producing soundbites, of saying what you think best suits you at a certain moment regardless of being an evident and shameless lie. You’ve been caught so many times that it has become boring.
About you not having time, everyone knows that this is your life. It’s not us saying so, it was your friend who said it publicly and also spoke of knowing all your dirty little secrets. By coincidence, you went silent (and blocked her) on that conversation after that remark, didn’t you?
Interesting to see that you know exactly how busy JBLittlemore is.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteWe see that you continue to treat Textusa as a man and that you still haven’t doxxed your friends who pretend to be of the gender they are not.
Is Trish Hills Allen really a woman or is he a man pretending to be a woman? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Trish Hills Allen is really a woman”.
Is Paul Rees really a man, or is she a woman pretending to be a man? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Paul Rees is really a man”.
Is Kirstie Murray really a woman or is he a man pretending to be a woman? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Kirstie Murray is really a woman”.
Is Natalie Charlesworth really a woman or is he a man pretending to be a woman? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Natalie Charlesworth is really a woman”.
Is Netty Estelle really a woman or is he a man pretending to be a woman? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “Netty Estelle is really a woman”.
Are you really a man, or are you a woman pretending to be a man? Go on, get it on the record and clarify this by saying clearly and without a doubt that “I’m really a man”.
If you do have the shamelessness – wouldn’t surprise us at all – to say “Trish Hills Allen is really a woman, Paul Rees is really a man, Kirstie Murray is really a woman, Natalie Charlesworth is really a woman, Netty Estelle is really a woman and I’m really a man” we would know you would be lying twice.
And it wouldn’t only be us, as you well know. What we believe would surprise you would be if you knew from where we know what we know. No, it wouldn’t be the apparently obvious answers. Those too, of course.
You made “gender-honesty” an issue. If it wasn’t for you, your friends could have continued to pretend to be REAL people who they aren’t and we couldn’t care less. In fact, we don’t care an iota. We only care that you are coherent and not the hypocrite you are.
Rest assured that we will not rest until you doxx who you must doxx, allowing your conscience to finally find some peace on this subject.
Want the names again? Here they are: Trish Hills Allen, Paul Rees, Kirstie Murray, Natalie Charlesworth, Netty Estelle and yourself.
How many times do you want us to repeat these names?
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1130522856293634049
Delete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx
I'm still sitting here like this 🤨a minute trying to figure it out, rat is Walker but agrees with T and that's good and why haven't Ben and I challenged rat? Is that about it? Fuck knows.
6:17 PM - 20 May 2019
*****
Yes, why haven’t you challenged the Rat, as he is clearly saying that Eddie signalled cadaver scent in the Scenic?
(as you know, do not reply here because it won’t be published. Still waiting for a mail so we can send you what you wrote in your Do Not Publish comment and you read it again)
Jim Gamble was on Twitter yesterday interacting with McCann abduction doubters including Pat Brown. His tweets have since disappeared, what a big surprise.
ReplyDeleteIf anybody knows the truth of whatever happened to Madeleine outside the immediate circle of ham actors, it's him IMO.
Apparently you've been 'debunked' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8peSx-YCPtA
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 20 May 2019, 20:20:00,
Delete😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
If we knew that to debunk something one just had to repeat the word “bullsh*t” over and over it would have saved us so many posts…
You say Gaspers and I say *Jaspers - but perhaps my autocue isn't working. *Gust/Jest let's call the whole thing off! :)
DeleteComment received that we have censored:
ReplyDelete“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The protection of the McCanns by José António Sara...":
Textusa,
I’m really confused. I really don’t know – (censored) goes against what the rat says.....his style is like (censored) but his content isn’t!!
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 May 2019, 19:33:00”
*****
Reason for censoring: we prefer to keep the Rat as the Rat, however obvious who the Rat is.
Anonymous,
We fully understand the confusion and will hopefully answer in more detail tomorrow if time allows it.
But for now, imagine that you have seen for years a bird that looks like a duck, has gold, white and green feathers and walks like a duck.
What you have seen up to now is that duck bark. It didn’t make any sense, in fact it made the whole scene simply absurd.
What you are now witnessing is the same bird, one that looks like a duck, has gold, white and green feathers and walks like a duck but this time it quacks like a duck.
There’s no question whatsoever that it’s the same duck, one that looks like a duck, has gold, white and green feathers and walks like a duck, so the only the only question that you have to ask yourself is why is that duck quacking now when it has barked for years.
That is what we hope to answer tomorrow, but we can now say that all is very easy to understand if one realises that the bird, the one that looks like a duck, has gold, white and green feathers and walks like a duck and is now ONLY making a real effort to sound like a duck on the dogs.
On all other subjects of the case – this can be seen clearly when it comes to Mark Perlin – that same duck continues to bark, and continues to be absurd.
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1130165487097266177
ReplyDeleteIsmail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 34 others
Now...
Involve Perlin, and those results will not get inside a court.
They will be ruled inadmissable.
What he’s doing is spiking the process.
The PJ are wise to not even engage him.
The crafty lawyers for defence will pick everything apart.
6:37 PM - 19 May 2019
*****
We recommend that the Rat, the barking duck when it comes to Perlin, reads the following (our caps):
https://www.forensic-healthcare.com/newsletter5.pdf
Pages 6 and 7:
“Scientific Reliability
Scientific evidence must be sufficiently reliable for it to be admissible in court of law. Yet laboratory signals such as PCR-amplified DNA have natural variation. Mixtures and small DNA amounts exhibit even more pattern fluctuation. How can solid results be derived from inconstant data?
A first application of Bayes rule lets us infer genotypes solely from the data, representing genetic uncertainty with allele pair probability. A second Bayesian turn with the LR then com-pares these probabilistic genotypes with reference and population genotypes to calculate the change in identification information. Bayes done twice (drawing on considerable computing power) allows a thorough examination of STR data, and an objective determination of match strength.
A DNA match is expressed in a single statistic, the LR, whose logarithm (powers of 10) is a standard measure of information. A positive log(LR) supports inclusion, a negative value suggests exclusion, while numbers around zero are inconclusive.
The reliability of a scientific process is assessed through validation. With DNA mixtures, we want an interpretation method to be sensitive (include the contributors), specific (exclude non-contributors) and reproducible. Validation studies can measure these axes of DNA mixture information through log(LR) values calculated from genotype comparisons.
Cybergenetics and other groups have conducted many TrueAllele validation studies on DNA mixture interpretation. Two published peer-reviewed studies used DNA samples of known composition, while two other journal papers assessed casework items and compared with manual review. These studies have established that the system is sensitive (match statistics are a million times higher than some threshold methods), specific (false matches are rejected by factors of a billion billion) and reproducible.
Court Appearances
TrueAllele Casework was admitted into evidence in three homicide cases where there were defense challenges, ONE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM and two in the United States. In a US case, the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme courts upheld the conviction and TrueAllele’s reliability, establishing a statewide precedent. The system was not admitted in a 2010 UK arson retrial where the judge had wanted more validation, although he “did not give a reasoned judgment explaining his decision.”
More TrueAllele validation studies were done, with regulatory approval granted by the New York State Commission on Forensic Science. A year and a half later, a voir dire was held in the Northern Ireland Massereene Bar-racks attack trial. In his ruling, the Honourable Mr. Justice Hart was satisfied that the system could be “regarded as being reliable and accepted” and admitted TrueAllele into evidence.
TrueAllele results have been reported in over a hundred criminal cases, most often for the prosecution. TrueAllele experts have testified in fifteen criminal trials, for offenses including murder, rape, child abduction, child molestation, bank robbery and terror. The system can separate out genotypes from mixtures of relatives. TrueAllele has helped lawyers defend innocent clients. The police use this computer interpretation to sharpen their DNA evidence, whether they need a more informative match statistic for a suspect in a crime, or they want to conduct a more effective DNA database search to solve a cold case.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteGenotype Database
The original UK vision was to use the NDNAD to prevent crime through cold case DNA match by retiring criminals early in their careers. But DNA mixtures, and other challenging evidence, have dimmed the success of that mission. The NDNAD can only store simple single-source genotypes, with allowance for uncertain alleles. This late 20th century database was designed for pristine evidence and reference samples. The NDNAD cannot effectively represent today’s DNA mixtures, and so most of that hard-won taxpayer-funded evidence is not used for crime prevention.
A TrueAllele genotype database could help fulfill the original NDNDA goal. The system can resolve all DNA evidence, regardless of complexity or number of contributors, into its constituent genotypes. All genotypes can be uploaded to a national TrueAllele database. The high specificity of TrueAllele’s mathematical LR database match greatly reduces false hits. Its high sensitivity finds more cold hits that solve (and ultimately prevent) crime more effectively than existing government technology. A public-private partnership could use all of Britain’s DNA evidence in a national genotype database that would better prevent needless victimization.
Conclusion
DNA identifi cation began in the United Kingdom. For over two hundred years, Britain has been innovating the sci-ence that backs this forensic gold standard. By using only the most accurate interpretation methods, a nation can keep its wealth of DNA evidence from transmuting into fool’s gold.
Cybergenetics pioneering TrueAllele technology is an ac-cepted part of the DNA landscape. The FSS and Cellmark Forensic Services have genotyped millions of CJ sam-ples through TrueAllele computers. The Casework sys-tem has interpreted DNA evidence in UK criminal cases, with expert testimony given on reported matches. TrueAl-lele can help burnish the DNA gold standard, mathemati-cally preserving DNA evidence to fi nd the guilty, free the innocent and make the world a safer place. by Mark W. Perlin
*****
What the paper from 2013 states, which will alarm the Rat and all the hoax apologists about their car boot samples excuses being A’s sandals or any other explanation of nappies:
“The system can separate out genotypes from mixtures of relatives”
“The system can resolve all DNA evidence, regardless of complexity or number of contributors, into its constituent genotypes”
But it was only after 2009 that the system was ready to be used on criminal DNA evidence.
It seems that 2009 was the year Perlin’s methods could be used for criminal investigations and the FSS were well aware of his methods, as they were using TrueAllele themselves. So they could have had the samples re-tested.
Mark Perlin knew that in 2007 FSS samples could not be unravelled as in the quotes above, but it can be now!
The final outcome of the UK case indicated a need not just to determine whose DNA was found but also how it got there.
If Maddie’s DNA could be shown to be in the apartment and the car, it would take the case to another level and for Mark Perlin and ultimately the court, to determine how it got there.
Mark Perlin has stated he can determine if DNA was transferred, so we presume science has moved on since 2011.