Barnfish wrote:

psketti wrote:
Barnfish means it. I asked her earlier why she keeps putting the onus on people other than those in charge of the investigation to travel abroad with a shovel and go dig, but she's neglected to answer.

Of course, if you do it, and there is evidence under there (that you don't knacker) it won't be hard to convince the police what your game is or anything, will it!

Gilly wrote:

I know

It was merely a dig at a response given in another thread

Gilly wrote:
I have answered, here is the answer again. Birch's ground radar is insufficient evidence to get a warrant to dig because there is no other indication a body is buried there, such as a cadaver dog search, signs of disturbance and the radar result itself.

Hence the appeal to dig has to be with Birch and the likes of yourself. A careful dig which stops the moment a body is found is not going to damage evidence. So go dig.

Barnfish wrote:
The likes of myself?!?

Why can't you get it, that that's a stupid proposition?

Like a body would be intact after this length of time! Any tampering would be likely to contaminate the scene if there was anything to be found. And people outside of the police have no acceptable justification for being caught digging around. How about the possibility of putting yourself in the frame by adding your own DNA to the potential crime scene?

The responsibility lies firmly with the police, and any advice for others to go physically probing around is silly advice.

Gilly wrote:
Glad you agree that the police are best placed to do the investigation over amateurs. There have been a lot of amateurs from the well meaning to out right crackpots offering various suggestions as to the whereabouts and what happened to Madeleine. Which ones should the police follow up?

Barnfish wrote:
There's a big difference between people suggesting logical lines of investigation & expressing concern if they're ignored, and people going blundering about at potential crime scenes. I would have thought that too obvious to have to state.

I'd expect the police to follow up any and all that seem logical - obviously.

Gilly wrote:
Lets be logical.

August 2007. A two day police search under warrant including use of a cadaver dog, cutting back under growth, draining the pool, checking to see if there was any disturbed ground and use of ground radar "Fernando Almeida - Associate Professor, Department of Geosciences at the University of Aveiro. Specialized in Geophysics. - What was your involvement in the investigation to the Maddie Case? In August 2007 I joined an international team, among which was the English investigator Mark Harrison, to perform georadar surveys in Murat's residence. The work was exhausting, lasted two days and involved over 20 people." - www.mccannfiles.com/id413.html

June 2012. An amateur conducting his own surveillance and then blundering about with a ground radar having broken into a potential crime scene found an indication of three voids. The police have possession of both sets of search results as Birch has sent his results to them. They decide a dig is not required.

Is that logical or not?

They should dig. There's no good reason not to.

Gilly wrote:
The police enquiry should be determined by amateurs and internet sleuths.

Barnfish says..
If you want to be logical, would it be logical to hide a body in a place where the police (dogs included) had already looked?

I mean using logic who's going to look there after that?

I'm not saying that the missing child is surely there, I'm saying if you want to apply logic, she's got to be somewhere, so why not there, after all, the guy has been a suspect?

Barnfish wrote:
If somebody has come up with something that looks like it might be significant, it should be checked out. There's no good reason not to. That doesn't make it sensible to encourage people to go interfering at potential crime scenes.

As long as you keep harping on the same points, I'll keep pointing out the obvious to you.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Was a suspect, was cleared after extensive enquiry and has successfully sued those who make unfounded allegations against him. Is it logical to continue to suspect such a person?

Who are you saying supposedly buried Madeleine in Murat's drive after the police search? Murat, the McCanns, the abductor? Have you got a logical answer to that? Have you a logical answer to when it could have happened?

Gilly wrote:
Responding to amateur sleuths is encouraging people to go and interfere with the proper investigation. Your idea of might be significant is the police's idea of cranks interfering and distracting from a real enquiry.

My encouragement for you to go and dig was in the hope you would and to make a fool of yourself and get arrested for trespass.

Barnfish wrote:
IF there was evidence discovered by digging, that might help to pinpoint the culprit, don't you think? If there's a possibility the body is there. that dig would confirm or refute the suspicion that there is . More logical than deducing back-to-front that somebody's not been proven culpable, therefore don't investigate new leads as they arise.

Investigate, and if nothing is found, they're no further forward than they were previously, but at least they've been thorough.

Barnfish wrote: IDK only that it's a good hiding place using logic, whoever might have done the deed, could have logically concluded that the best place to hide her is in the place where a suspect has been cleared and it's been searched already & cleared.

It's the same as a tactic used in sport, such as tennis or football, (if you'll permit the analogy) a player wants to place the ball where their opponent is moving away from, not where they are moving towards.
So if something has been noticed, it would only take a short time to check out that small area, then all this can be halted and the 'search' can be no longer distracted by this.

Barnfish wrote:
How do you deduce the person was a crank? Pre-judging instead of investigating is simply negligence.
Barnfish wrote:
If that's true, then you're a complete dick head.

But I don't believe it's true - you're just embarrassed now that it's been pointed out to you what a fucking stupid suggestion it was that you were pushing.

The police are not interested, so the only thing left is for people who think there is a body there to dig. So either negotiate with Murat to dig or someone has to to break in and dig themselves. So long all they do is carefully and dig down as an archaeologist would until they find any sign of remains and then stop, it would be enough. That can be done without doing any significant damage to the crime scene.

So to those who want such, do it.

How do you deduce Birch is even remotely correct in his investigations?

I've had enough, there's no point going round & round like a train on a looped railway picking up the same passengers and dropping them off at Barnfish Station, for those passengers to then be denied access off the platform and are herded back onto the same train to loop the loop and come back to Barnfish Station.....

Barnfish Station continuous announcement 'You were here once before, there's nothing here to see, continue to the next station, any questions can be forwarded to the station controller who will dismiss them as cranky forthwith'.

How I would love to see the tide turn on this hideous pair. Sorry it's another tiddly msn link, but I am not very athletic at the moment!

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/madeleine-m...=BBoPWjQ&ocid=TSHDHP

xx