nikita Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Oh lord ...i'm just going to agree with you, it's easier No comment:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikita Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Oh lord ...i'm just going to agree with you, it's easier Bye the way thats just what my husband says all the time,but then hes always wrong as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teenyweeny Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 i think the sniffer dogs in the apartment was pretty damming evidence.but it seems this was discredited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikita Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 i think the sniffer dogs in the apartment was pretty damming evidence.but it seems this was discredited. Yes thats true that was discredited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Yes, as I understand it from lots of old threads, Mark Warner specifically did not offer such a service because that site was not secure. This was not made clear at the time of booking. According to the McCanns, they expected this service at The Ocean Club until they were informed otherwise when they got there. I am reasonably certain that they were not informed that this was because 'the site was not secure'. I have never heard this reason stated before, do you mind me asking where you might have read this, as I am interested, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 there does seem to be a lot of discrepencies in the mcanns account of what actually happened, Teenyweeny, what are these discrepancies, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 This was not made clear at the time of booking. According to the McCanns, they expected this service at The Ocean Club until they were informed otherwise when they got there. I am reasonably certain that they were not informed that this was because 'the site was not secure'. I have never heard this reason stated before, do you mind me asking where you might have read this, as I am interested, thank you. Sorry, I don't know/remember. It will have been a thread (more likely several threads) either in SF or Digital Spy Forums. I do not know if it was something specifically formally stated by Mark Warner. It was "common knowledge" within the threads I was reading at the time that this resort was different from their other resorts in that they didn't offer a listening service, and I regularly read that this was the reason - although to what extent this was advised to visitors I do not know. I certainly am not claiming that MW had ever warned visitors that listening was not safe. I simply do not know. It's so long after the event that I would not even know where to start looking. I think some people keep extensive links. With a bit of luck, such a person may be on here and be able to advise where this came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdnaKrabappe Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Yes thats true that was discredited. http://shadplay.blogspot.com/2011/04/casey-anthony-gerald-mccanncadaver-dogs.html Not completely. The investigation was suddenly hushed up, lots of people were threatened with legal action and Amaral resigned. The McCann's recently lost that case and Amaral is free to speak again and this evidence is coming back to the forefront. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Yes thats true that was discredited. Not sure how it was discredited, but if the 'death dogs' are unreliable it is interesting that of the many places that they were exposed to, one of the only places they detected 'death' was the boot of the hire car where DNA evidence was subsequently found. Coincidence or are the 'death dogs' more reliable than they are being made out? John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagger Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 That's just it though, there is no scrutiny, even if anyone looks at the McCanns the wrong way they have a team of solicitors slapping injunctions on them before they can blink, clever people i'll give you that. Of course there's scrutiny!! The whole world is now talking about Madeleine and the re-opening of this case and this is all thanks to her parents persistently bringing her to our attention. They have campaigned tirelessly to keep Madeleine in the public eye. I seriously doubt they'd do that if they were guilty of killing their child. They were guilty of neglect for sure but I don't think they killed her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.