Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

[CHERIE.T]

The open window always made sense to me if there was more than one abductor - ie working as a pair

If abductor a goes in via patio and opens window and hands out Maddie who then walks off to a car in the car park it makes sense for a quick getaway

it might have felt to be too risky to exit via patio with Maddie as it was visible just from the bar - entering was ok as he could crouch .

anyway just an idea.

I cant believe that still after 6 years we still have the argument that they found Maddies DNA in the hire car - they didn't !!

They found minute trace elements that could have come from up to 5 people and bearing in mind that Maddy would have shared elements of DNA with siblings and parents it is hardly surprising that there was 15 alleles - it would have been surprising if there was not

bbm
YET that non-fact has been constantly stated as fact for years.

 

[haden]

if using the " pair theory " - once Maddy was handed out the window then it would have been a very quick exit - without bothering tio sut door or not - just get the F out of there

To me it must have happened after Gerry's visit - maybe even after MO visit

who knows if there was a draft from the open window that might have moved the doors in some way - entirely possible - I know what happens here if I have from door and back door open at same time all the doors in middle slam shut - and it doesn't have to be windy

I agree. There could be 'pair' or two people working on this crime.

But the doors being opened by wind, I am not sure I believe in this.

I am more inclined to believe that one person was in this apartment for longer.

And as why, this could be the 'key' in solving the case.

If for example the person one was present in the apartment waiting for the accomplice to turn up. Misunderstanding with accomplice where they are coming could be the reason for opening the window. Checking whether they did turn up. And when they finally arrive they came to the parking area across the road of OC reception instead of parking area next to the apartment.

This could mean the person two with the car is not from the area. This could also mean that the person one and person two did exchange communication.

I remember looking at this when the files were just released and finding a statement of a girl who said she came at that time to OC reception to 'pick up something' and there was a car waiting for her, I think with her boyfriend driving.I was of impression they parked next to OC reception. It would be hard to find this statement again.

For example, I will refer to the case of missing Natalie Holloway where it is thought that Joran Van der Sloot father helped his son in disposing the body of Natalie.
Something like this could have happened in here, the intruder asking someone for help and the person not really knowing where they have to come.

 

[Hexe]

I think this is a misunderstanding during the translation. IMO different people call 'the back door' differently. For some 'the back door' means the front door, for others 'the back door' means the patio doors.

It cannot be. McCann speaking about back door mentioned, that it can be locked only from the inside, so it's clear, he talked about the patio door. In another place he mentions he stepped through the rear door immediately into the lounge which is possible only when using the patio door, not the front one. So there is no translating mistake here.

 

[~n/t~]

we are in danger of going over old ground again !!

I am sure Amaral thought he had the smoking gun when he found the dogs alerting - but problem was when the analysis was done they didn't find the forensics that would have placed Maddy in the car

To me the whole hire car thing puts just doesn't make any sense. If the parents had managed to dispose of a body for 6 weeks - without it being discovered - then I just cannot see then moving it again ?? and doing this whilst under suspicion -

but anyway as I said old ground still a mystery

Yes a mystery indeed but fact nonetheless that the dogs did detect blood and cadaver odour in the rental car and apartment.

Out of 12 cars, they alerted the McCanns car. What are the odds of that?



-----------

Late July: British sniffer dogs flown out to Portugal. Keela, who can detect minute quantities of blood, and Eddie, who is trained to detect bodies, work in the apartment and several cars, including the hire car the McCanns had rented 25 days after Madeleine disappeared.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13386785

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes a mystery indeed but fact nonetheless that the dogs did detect blood and cadaver odour in the rental car and apartment.

Out of 12 cars, they alerted the McCanns car. What are the odds of that?



-----------

Late July: British sniffer dogs flown out to Portugal. Keela, who can detect minute quantities of blood, and Eddie, who is trained to detect bodies, work in the apartment and several cars, including the hire car the McCanns had rented 25 days after Madeleine disappeared.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13386785

It was obvious it was the mccanns car. So the handler could have helped them alert. I can not take that out of the equation.

 

[CHERIE.T]

IF the abductor entered the room by window what and who did he immediately see?

IF the abductor entered the room by the door what and who did he immediately see?

No light on or a small light on, how did the abductor know where Madeleine slept?

 

[~n/t~]

It was obvious it was the mccanns car. So the handler could have helped them alert. I can not take that out of the equation.

Why would the handler incriminate the McCanns? What motive would they have for doing such a thing?

 

[Cherwell]

The Smiths arrived on the 30th.
I think I've seen somewhere that the Smiths met Murat in a bar during their stay in PDL .. not sure if this is myth or a true account. Will look for that.

From Martin Smiths statement
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Hmmmm.. this is IMO very strange, that Martin Smith knew Murat.. )) lots of coincidences in this case..

I don't find it strange at all. The Smiths were not one-off holidaymakers, they had their own apartment in PdL where they stayed regularly. It's quite natural that they would be acquainted with other Anglophone residents.

Mr Smith doesn't have to have known RM very well in order to say that he wasn't the man he saw. There are people I see in my local pub whom I don't really know ... I may know their names or where they live, doesn't really matter, but I'd know their faces well enough to recognise them when I see them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why would the handler incriminate the McCanns? What motive would they have for doing such a thing?

It happens. There are studies on Trainers cuing dogs. In a case this high profile, I can think of many reasons.. One being just innocuous, The dogs felt the trainer react to the car so they did.

I don't believe there was anything in that car at all. Nothing more than skin cells. It is possible because it was a rental that there was contamination from other sources.

That is a big problem for me.. Rental car, Rental room.

 

[~n/t~]

IF the abductor entered the room by window what and who did he immediately see?

IF the abductor entered the room by the door what and who did he immediately see?

No light on or a small light on, how did the abductor know where Madeleine slept?

The room: Madeleine's bed, left, the twins' cots and an empty bed under the shuttered window


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Madeleine-McCann-met-fate.html#ixzz2kMeWT3ar
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[haden]

Why would the handler incriminate the McCanns? What motive would they have for doing such a thing?

This did not incriminate them.

Wherever the dogs alerted the full DNA found was from living individuals.

 

[hoshizora]

Kate did state that when she went to check the children, the door was suddenly slammed shut by the wind and when she opened it, she discovered that Maddie was gone. If this is the case (and I'm assuming there was an abductor and let's say they came after Matthew Oldfield's visit), then the door would not be more open as it was apparently discovered by Kate, but more closed as the wind was blowing on the door from that direction. If the wind was strong enough to slam a door shut quickly after Kate opened it, the door would have been closed when she arrived. The only way I can see it being as Kate said, opened when she arrived and closing suddenly (and again, I'm going with the intruder theory for arguments sake) is if she missed the intruder by a matter of seconds, which I find very unlikely. Of course it could be argued that the strong wind could have come in "bursts" or "pockets" every so often, but I still think she would have discovered it closed otherwise as if was at least 30 minutes between the checks. I don't believe the sudden strong gust of wind that closed the door when she was there was the only one that night. I would also assume the door slamming would wake up the twins, but this is just my assumption.

I also think they would have found evidence of a third party on the window.

Basically, I think given the wind on that night, the doors would be more on the closed side than open side as was discovered (not including prior to the window being open) and again, assuming there was an abductor, I would think he would try to keep the room secluded and not have the doors more open if he were trying to do something illegal like that. Of course I could be wrong, and I'd love to hear what everyone thinks about the wind in relation to the window and what it could mean.

Given the wind as well, wouldn't it be more likely that the abductor would leave evidence such as hair and clothing fibres behind? I'm not an expert and I don't know for sure, but I would think there would be more chance of evidence blowing off than there would be in an environment that's not so windy?

 

[haden]

Given the wind as well, wouldn't it be more likely that the abductor would leave evidence such as hair and clothing fibres behind? I'm not an expert and I don't know for sure, but I would think there would be more chance of evidence blowing off than there would be in an environment that's not so windy?

Wasn't there a fingerprint found on the patio doors which they could not find who it belonged to?

 

[~n/t~]

This did not incriminate them.

Wherever the dogs alerted the full DNA found was from living individuals.

I suggest you read the post I replied to. The poster posted that the handler helped the dogs alert to the McCanns car

Was a link posted regarding the results? I may have missed it. TIA

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Kate did state that when she went to check the children, the door was suddenly slammed shut by the wind and when she opened it, she discovered that Maddie was gone. If this is the case (and I'm assuming there was an abductor and let's say they came after Matthew Oldfield's visit), then the door would not be more open as it was apparently discovered by Kate, but more closed as the wind was blowing on the door from that direction. If the wind was strong enough to slam a door shut quickly after Kate opened it, the door would have been closed when she arrived. The only way I can see it being as Kate said, opened when she arrived and closing suddenly (and again, I'm going with the intruder theory for arguments sake) is if she missed the intruder by a matter of seconds, which I find very unlikely. Of course it could be argued that the strong wind could have come in "bursts" or "pockets" every so often, but I still think she would have discovered it closed otherwise as if was at least 30 minutes between the checks. I don't believe the sudden strong gust of wind that closed the door when she was there was the only one that night. I would also assume the door slamming would wake up the twins, but this is just my assumption.

I also think they would have found evidence of a third party on the window.

Basically, I think given the wind on that night, the doors would be more on the closed side than open side as was discovered (not including prior to the window being open) and again, assuming there was an abductor, I would think he would try to keep the room secluded and not have the doors more open if he were trying to do something illegal like that. Of course I could be wrong, and I'd love to hear what everyone thinks about the wind in relation to the window and what it could mean.

Given the wind as well, wouldn't it be more likely that the abductor would leave evidence such as hair and clothing fibres behind? I'm not an expert and I don't know for sure, but I would think there would be more chance of evidence blowing off than there would be in an environment that's not so windy?

I would think a hotel room is a treasure trove of fibers and hair. Even cleaned. I believe that there is probably more there than we know. I think they zeroed in on The McCanns because it works best for them and so they did not really take other evidence as seriously as they should have.

 

[Donjeta]

Half and hour later, without anything to signal [with no way to tell the time], it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door.

Me not understand
If they had no way to tell the time how did they know it was 22h03?

 

[hoshizora]

It was obvious it was the mccanns car. So the handler could have helped them alert. I can not take that out of the equation.

I understand that there is always a possibility for that, but because they alerted in both the McCann's rental car and in their apartment, I find that very compelling. Also aligned with the fact that nobody has died in that apartment, why are they detecting the scent of a cadaver?

These dogs have been used in a lot of cases (200 I think they said) and I find it very strange that this case is the only one (to my knowledge) that is actually questioning what the dogs found.

However, the hander did not make them alert in this case. Where the dogs alerted, they did find some DNA. Although I agree not enough to say this is definitely Madeleines, it proves that the handler did not make them alert when they found nothing.

Unless the handler planted the evidence...

 

[hoshizora]

Wasn't there a fingerprint found on the patio doors which they could not find who it belonged to?

This is the first time I'm hearing about this.

 

[Donjeta]

However, the hander did not make them alert in this case. Where the dogs alerted, they did find some DNA. Although I agree not enough to say this is definitely Madeleines, it proves that the handler did not make them alert when they found nothing.

JMO but I don't think it proves anything. Not saying that the handler made them alert but DNA is not that rare and if the dogs alert at DNA they should alert in every place they are taken to. I'm pretty sure there is someone's DNA in every car and apartment they will ever be expected to search. They should not alert at DNA, they should be trained to alert at cadaver scent and / or blood.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I understand that there is always a possibility for that, but because they alerted in both the McCann's rental car and in their apartment, I find that very compelling. Also aligned with the fact that nobody has died in that apartment, why are they detecting the scent of a cadaver?

These dogs have been used in a lot of cases (200 I think they said) and I find it very strange that this case is the only one (to my knowledge) that is actually questioning what the dogs found.

However, the hander did not make them alert in this case. Where the dogs alerted, they did find some DNA. Although I agree not enough to say this is definitely Madeleines, it proves that the handler did not make them alert when they found nothing.

Unless the handler planted the evidence...

But the DNA was not Madeleines so what does them alerting mean then?? Nothing..