P
pickles
Guest
in their apartment?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482105&in_page_id=1770
Just because there is a "death scent" doesnt mean the MCCANNS DID IT? sure, it was found on their hire car, but it did not specify whether it was maddies particular death scent, did it?
um, and im sure al sorts of crap end up in a hire car.. lol
BUT MY POINT IS? WHY ARE THEY TRYING TO STOP THE EVIDENCE BEING USED?
If my child/brother/father went missing and there was a death scent left over in his room, I would FOLLOW EVERY CLUE POSSIBLE, just because he may have died in the room, DOESNT MEAN *I* DID IT! Of course I would have them follow the evidence and chase up any clue!
why are they so set on hiding it? Even if it is a false lead (get another dog to check the work! ;-)) and it leads to NOTHING at least they tried... er, and why would sniffer dogs exist if they didnt work? try telling that to a sniffer dog once it catches you with drugs at an airport :/
But my point is, if they are SO INNOCENT WHY COVER EVIDENCE?
(er, and yes, the other guy in the article killed his wife im sure too... lol)
But my point is, if they are SO INNOCENT WHY COVER EVIDENCE?
(er, and yes, the other guy in the article killed his wife im sure too... lol)
"becaue they are BOTH doctors .. therefore the scent could be arisen from their work"
WELL, FINE, then that is ANOTHER REASON WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE COVERED UP, if they have nothing to hide, they are not ARGUING that it came from work they are ARGUING THAT IT IS FALSE. if it came from work, whats the problem with chasing it up?
Er, and how can their WORK follow them to Portgual on holiday? I didnt know that that many GPs had PEOPLE DIE ON THEM or BLEED on them in the office then go home and go off on holiday with it... :/
er, ENGLISH ROSE, I am not "dissing them to pick up points on Y!A' er, it cost me 5 POINTS TO ASK THIS, *YOU* are the one benefitting it!
I DIDNT SAY THIS MADE THEM GUILTY OR NOT?
why they havent been charged has NOTHING TO DO WITH MY QUESTION AS TO WHY THEY DONT WANT THE EVIDENCE INVESTIGATED OR USED.
that was my only question. i didnt say they were guilty or not, i personally do NOT CARE whether they are GUILTY of killing her.
I am saying that an intruder could have come in and killed Maddie and then they would have a death scent and it would leave clues for them to follow! THAT IS ALL! WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE THEORY THAT SOMEONE ELSE KILLED HER IN THEIR APARTMENT?? I am not saying they did it, i am saying whats the big deal about evidence if you are not guilty??
p.s. I am writing in capital letters because apparently people can NOT READ when I WRITE IN LOWER CASE because they DONT ANSWER MY QUESTION.
er, APPARENTLY A POODLE WAGGING ITS TAIL (which it wasnt a poodle it was a sniffer dog) DOES PROVE SOMETHING OR THEY WOULDNT USE THEM IN AIRPORTS TO SNIFF OUT DRUGS! geez, get a clue...
yeah of course kate mccann is very different from the shannon mother case, *SHE's* a *DOCTOR*, so she CANT DO ANY WRONG, suck ups.
yes, i am wound up, because i ask a simple question and no one seems to read it. For example someone could say "they want to have the evidence thrown out, not because they are guilty, but because XYZ" is that so difficult? i am asking a good reason why evidence should be disregarded if it does not implicate them?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482105&in_page_id=1770
Just because there is a "death scent" doesnt mean the MCCANNS DID IT? sure, it was found on their hire car, but it did not specify whether it was maddies particular death scent, did it?
um, and im sure al sorts of crap end up in a hire car.. lol
BUT MY POINT IS? WHY ARE THEY TRYING TO STOP THE EVIDENCE BEING USED?
If my child/brother/father went missing and there was a death scent left over in his room, I would FOLLOW EVERY CLUE POSSIBLE, just because he may have died in the room, DOESNT MEAN *I* DID IT! Of course I would have them follow the evidence and chase up any clue!
why are they so set on hiding it? Even if it is a false lead (get another dog to check the work! ;-)) and it leads to NOTHING at least they tried... er, and why would sniffer dogs exist if they didnt work? try telling that to a sniffer dog once it catches you with drugs at an airport :/
But my point is, if they are SO INNOCENT WHY COVER EVIDENCE?
(er, and yes, the other guy in the article killed his wife im sure too... lol)
But my point is, if they are SO INNOCENT WHY COVER EVIDENCE?
(er, and yes, the other guy in the article killed his wife im sure too... lol)
"becaue they are BOTH doctors .. therefore the scent could be arisen from their work"
WELL, FINE, then that is ANOTHER REASON WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE COVERED UP, if they have nothing to hide, they are not ARGUING that it came from work they are ARGUING THAT IT IS FALSE. if it came from work, whats the problem with chasing it up?
Er, and how can their WORK follow them to Portgual on holiday? I didnt know that that many GPs had PEOPLE DIE ON THEM or BLEED on them in the office then go home and go off on holiday with it... :/
er, ENGLISH ROSE, I am not "dissing them to pick up points on Y!A' er, it cost me 5 POINTS TO ASK THIS, *YOU* are the one benefitting it!
I DIDNT SAY THIS MADE THEM GUILTY OR NOT?
why they havent been charged has NOTHING TO DO WITH MY QUESTION AS TO WHY THEY DONT WANT THE EVIDENCE INVESTIGATED OR USED.
that was my only question. i didnt say they were guilty or not, i personally do NOT CARE whether they are GUILTY of killing her.
I am saying that an intruder could have come in and killed Maddie and then they would have a death scent and it would leave clues for them to follow! THAT IS ALL! WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE THEORY THAT SOMEONE ELSE KILLED HER IN THEIR APARTMENT?? I am not saying they did it, i am saying whats the big deal about evidence if you are not guilty??
p.s. I am writing in capital letters because apparently people can NOT READ when I WRITE IN LOWER CASE because they DONT ANSWER MY QUESTION.
er, APPARENTLY A POODLE WAGGING ITS TAIL (which it wasnt a poodle it was a sniffer dog) DOES PROVE SOMETHING OR THEY WOULDNT USE THEM IN AIRPORTS TO SNIFF OUT DRUGS! geez, get a clue...
yeah of course kate mccann is very different from the shannon mother case, *SHE's* a *DOCTOR*, so she CANT DO ANY WRONG, suck ups.
yes, i am wound up, because i ask a simple question and no one seems to read it. For example someone could say "they want to have the evidence thrown out, not because they are guilty, but because XYZ" is that so difficult? i am asking a good reason why evidence should be disregarded if it does not implicate them?