See the ghouls are out and about

On a Friday night.  Now why doesn’t that surprise me?  Yes, there they are, salivating that the “death scent” has been detected in the bedroom of the parents of missing baby Lisa Irwin. Straight away the parents are guilty in their eyes.  Totally forgetting any plausible reasons as to what the dogs alerted to and why they barked.  Nope they can’t wait for the forensic analysis report; straight away they just jump straight in and say, “That is it, the child is dead,”

Of course the links are being spread on twitter, but I do hope they remember this post about the Casey Anthony case where the cadaver dog handler testified that a cadaver dog will alert to decomposing fluids from a living person.

Yes they are tweeting links to the breaking news. Mind you this link did make me laugh, as on the first page, one of the links quoted, as to the authors research,  refers to one the biggest conspiracy theorists going in the Madeleine case… Stevo and his site Dogs Don’t Lie site.

You know the site that sells a nice range of tacky babywear and T-shirts.  Yes we all want to dress our children in bodysuits and bibs with the logos, “Dogs don’t lie, we just smell good.”  Well we do if we are part of the ghoul team.  Normal parents wouldn’t even contemplate putting their new born babies and toddlers in clothing that relates to cadaver dogs.

And if that is not ghoulish enough for you, you can always purchase a T-Shirt to put your dog in and a nice brand new dog bowl to drink out of .  All with the customary, “Dogs don’t lie” logo,

I won’t bother quoting from page one of that link but page two is highly relevant. It says:

The police dog hitting on the Irwin bedroom floor does not necessarily mean baby Lisa died and was at that location. Cadaver dogs don’t distinguish whose decomposed human tissue they smell. The scent of decomposed tissue need not mean anyone died at all. Sometimes decomposing tissue is detected because of bloody clothing left behind after an injury or used sanitary napkins having been present.

It’s especially important that investigators not jump to hasty conclusions or use uncorroborated dog alert evidence as circumstantial evidence of guilt for these reasons.

While the cadaver dog evidence is an ominous sign that police may now search for baby Lisa’s body, that conclusion is not a given. Especially with police still investigating reports of a man having been seen with a baby in suspicious circumstances the night Lisa Irwin was reported missing from her crib, there’s still room for hope that what the cadaver dog smelled was not baby Lisa.

Mind you sightings won’t stop the ghouls, they will just say, the witnesses are “in on it” and as for the matter of the dogs findings being backed up by proper forensics, forget it, two barks and that is a guilty verdict, bugger forensics.

Why these people are so eager to write a missing child off as dead, is beyond me.  But it seems they are..  What a strange world we live in.


8 comments on “See the ghouls are out and about

  1. Bren, you posted what I was thinking for the past couple of days.

    I feel sorry for the missing children who get lost in this ghoulish linking of cases to somehow indicate that the McCann’s were involved in the death of their daughter, Madeleine, as the priority concern for some.
    Justice requires proof, I hope that proof is found in the Irwin case, as with any case, to indicate what has happened to the poor child. Until then we should hope and pray for a happy outcome and that conclusive proof will be found to help find the truth.

    What will be, will be. Only after the truth is known will we know what that may be and what judgments should be made.

    • Evening Deuce, it is sickening to read, the salivating because a dog barks. How would they feel if this was one of their children who went missing?  Would they like people writing their child off as dead without proof?  Would they like their child linked to every missing case going?

      Time will tell, and all the time there is no body there is hope.  And that child deserves to be classed as missing until either found alive and well or her little body is found.

      If the parents are not involved, Deborah Bradley has got to live with her actions that night of getting drunk.  She has got to face every day knowing that if she had not drunk that wine she might have heard something and could have saved her baby.

      We know she shouldn’t have been drinking that heavily, but  just because she did drink heavily that night it still doesn’t make her a killer or being responsible for harming her child.

      We will hear the truth in the end.

    • Hello Deuce. Yes, I agree. 

      In fact, it’s extremely rare in certain quarters to publicise a case in which the police are reasonably sure that the parents were not involved, let alone a full-blown amber alert type request for assistance. 

      Tough for the missing kids, but in terms of subliminal value, it just doesn’t fit with the smiling church photo. 

      Two notable exceptions, however, are:
      – The missing Irish teenager, most likely due to the personal interest on the part of a poster, and anyway the difference in age makes it unlikely to detract from the main thrust:

      – Mari Luz Cortes, but I suspect that was due to the fact that the dad decided at the last minute that he didn’t want her photo next to Madeleine’s on a planned joint poster (and I expect that was because he’d believed the media hype that the parents were about to be charged). 

      When it was discovered that the poor child had really been assaulted and killed by some nutcase, the angle changed to juxtaposing a photo of the mother in a state of near collapse with one of Kate’s apparent composure, the message being how a truly distraught mother is supposed to appear. The fact that the photo of the poor mother was taken as she was being helped to walk to her daughter’s funeral seemed to have been an insignificant detail. 

  2. Incidentally, congratulations to 

    Carol Bengle Gilbert

    on a well-balanced article. How refreshing.

  3. Yes it is well-balanced, article.  Just wish she hadn’t used Stevos rather tasteless and tacky site as part of her article though.

  4. LOL Yes, I agree on that point. 

  5. I’m off on a tangent. Some of the “haters / guilters” may have those views for reasons that have nothing to do with the cases in question.

    Imagine the following situation:Someone in a family has a terrible accident or an illness and survives. There’s a time when that person no longer warrants a hospital bed, nor a place in a hospice. The solution is a supposedly temporary holding place with basic care facilities. (I happen to know several people who were in this type of situation.)You’re stuck there, waiting to get out and somehow reconstruct your life. Except you can’t. Your life will never be the same, you can’t go back to your old life and you’re on a long waiting list for housing with paramedical assistance. In the meantime, you get access to the Internet… it becomes your lifeline. And you may well have reason to be bitter.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: