Does Luminol Need Confirmation?

[u/Etvos2]

I'll admit this is a low effort post but for those of us with the misfortune to have argued this case over the years, spraying coffee etc ... all over your phone or monitor is an understandable response.

For those lucky enough not to have dealt with the Hairy Rag, it has been stating flatly for over a decade that Luminol hits at Villa Della Pergola *HAVE* to be assumed to be blood. What else could it be?

Except that is when a countryman is in the dock. Then the "science" changes dramatically and Luminol hits in the McCann's hotel room absolutely need additional confirmatory tests.

( For the record, I have absolutely no knowledge and therefore no informed opinion on the McCann case. I merely mention it to demonstrate the hypocrisy of one of the most prominent Knox guilters ).

[u/Careful-Attention500]

Correct, the whole group is in the coverup. Thes totality of all 9-10 witnesses is contradicted by the bar staff, who observed none of that behavior. Put aside the fantastical ridiculousness of their confessed behavior (human nature makes ample space for being weird), their story contradicts their habits during vacation (not human nature), whereby they employ childcare staff.
Yes, I trust the dogs and the attendant reports. They could be wrong and I can be convinced. But what if they're right? Not "what if aliens exist", but an actual determination to something true that points to the reality of a missing and likely dead child. What if the dogs are right?

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/Careful-Attention500]

I highly doubt that all the other 7 adults on that trip to Portugal would be willing to lie for Gerry McCann, the person most accused, if they believed he killed, or might have killed, his 3-year-old toddler.

As for the bar staff, they would have been busy and not paying attention to the group beyond what they had to. I highly doubt they would have noticed who left or when or for how long.

I don't think their story of what happened that night "contradicts their habits during vacation (not human nature), whereby they employ childcare staff."

Putting your child in staffed daycare during the day when you are out of sight doing activities is not contradictory with leaving them asleep in a villa 180 ft. in direct sight with a baby monitor and physically checking on them every 20-30 minutes. Foolish in hindsight? Yes. But not contradictory to their habits.

I also highly doubt the McCanns would have continued to push for more investigations of Madeleine's disappearance as they did, if they were in any way involved.

The idea that they got rid of Madeleine's body, disposing of it someplace so hard to find it's never been found in 19 years despite extensive searches, when they were not familiar with the area outside the resort, is improbable.

I think people's penchant for pushing the idea that 'there's somehow more to a story than meets the eye and they know what that is' pushed the 'McCanns are guilty' theory. Amateur sleuths who think they are smarter and can spot things others can't riddle the internet. Others feel like part of a smarter, 'you can't fool me' community. For others, it's entertainment, a mystery to solve.

[u/Careful-Attention500 → u/Connect_War_5821]

I'm not pushing any notion that there's more to this story. I simply find the McCann's and their friends' stories don't stick. Human nature isn't about doing something you find normal ("why would 7 adults help hide something bad that happened to a child?"), but rather how habits are established and broken.
The McCanns never pushed for more investigation, just an investigation that focused away from them, which is why they never re-enacted this supposed "checking system" with the police, and why they pushed "The Tanner Sighting", but are dead silent on the Smith sighting.
Who knows what happened to young McCann, but to jump to "pdf file vampire" is awfully convenient for people who have never corroborated their story. I don't think I'm smarter than any investigatory - as opposed to Knox/McCann supporters can't go by a week sans insulting police.

[u/Onad55 → u/Careful-Attention500]

Why do the police need them to reenact the checking system? Is there something that the reenactment would uncover to help them catch the perpetrator or is this just a ploy to find and exploit a contradiction in their statements? You need to think hard about your answer because I am certain that if the McCann‘s lawyer thought about it they would have advised them not to do it.

[u/Careful-Attention500 → u/Onad55]

They never did it (not with the police, though they did some vague reenactment for a documentary), and their lawyers very likely advised it. The purpose of the reenactment would be to look at the mechanics of their story, and it would necessarily bring in their respective children. The claim is Parent A1 (a mom or dad of one unit), would get up, walk 5-7 minutes to the building (prior to entering their rooms), and check on all of the kids (though this changes to checking on their respective children). Police could time one run against the group's claim of how long they were at the bar and see if it holds. Again, the bar staff claims there was no persistent movement of individuals from the table coming and going, and there's discrepancy around when they raised the alarm (between the group's and bar staff).

[u/Onad55 → u/Careful-Attention500]

I take it that you don’t believe in the rule of law against self incrimination.

[u/Careful-Attention500 → u/Onad55]

I defend the criminal's right to protect himself against self incrimination. It doesn't mean we believe the criminal. If a parent wants their child's murderer - or abductor - to face justice, they, themselves, must be above suspicion. McCann's have never met that threshold.

[u/Onad55 → u/Careful-Attention500]

This tells us where your mindset is. You have already made up your mind that suspect means guilty until proven otherwise. The rule against self incrimination was not created to help the guilty. It was created to stop police from torturing their version of the truth out of suspects who may even be innocent.

[u/Careful-Attention500 → u/Onad55]

A suspect, by definition, is to be cleared or charged. A suspect has rights, and can and should be counselled by a vigorous advocate, but because a suspect has rights doesn't mean their plea for innocence is enough, much less a weak and uncorroborated alibi.

[u/Onad55 → u/Careful-Attention500]

The only thing that is weak and uncorroborated is the evidence against them. They produced multiple witnesses that established a strong alibi so you jumped to a grand conspiracy and claimed that all of the witnesses were in on the crime.

We see the same scenario play out repeatedly in the Kercher case. Patrick claims Usi was at his bar when he opened and through most of the night. The police sought to arrest Usi. Mero comes forward as Patrick’s alibi for the later evening and the police seek an international wiretap on Mero and manufacture a fake anonymous phone call claiming Mero was Patrick’s bookkeeper for his illicit drug operation. And of course there is Raffaele who claimed Amanda woke up in his bed the next morning and the judge used that specific claim to hold Raffaele as a co accused murder. In this sub we have even seen allegations that Jovanna is a member of the Siberian mafia because of her support for the accused.

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/Careful-Attention500]

There is no serious conversation about McCann involvement sorry.

[u/Careful-Attention500 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

This isn't true. The Anglo media (and governments) ensure there is no "McCann involvement story". Their actual story is absurd, and contradicted by bar staff, vacation witnesses and cadaver dogs with sterling reputations.

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/Careful-Attention500]

I can’t help you with this! Total abdication of good sense.