Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect #31

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see it as more nuanced.

The existence of the alerts was a fact. The interpretation of the alerts and other evidence was open to opinion and expertise of those involved. The Court at first instance did not go behind those opinions and no evidence was presented to call the content of the investigation into question.

e.g. we have seen on here claims that impugn the dog handler - but this is not evidence that was presented to the court.
The experts said no inference could be drawn from the alerts... So how did they become a proven fact confirming cadaver odour
 
I see it as more nuanced.

The existence of the alerts was a fact. The interpretation of the alerts and other evidence was open to opinion and expertise of those involved. The Court at first instance did not go behind those opinions and no evidence was presented to call the content of the investigation into question.

e.g. we have seen on here claims that impugn the dog handler - but this is not evidence that was presented to the court.
Implicitly, if not explicitly, there is, in the files, criticism of Grime, contained in the reports of Harrison.

First, it is clear that Harrison never wanted inspections of:

vehicles, besides those of Robert Murat's

Clothing. Thank goodness, none of Robert Murat's clothing was strewn over a floor for dogs to trample over and sniff. Neither should the McCanns' clothing have been. Especially not the same clothing twice in different spots. For a clue of what Grime, acting autonomously, was about, there, you need to go to Detroit and the Bianca Jones case, where you will find Grime's modus operandi exactly replicated from Praia da Luz.

The McCanns' rented villa, simply because Madeleine never lived there.

If you read Mark Harrison's retrospective summary of all searches, you will find he is careful to acknowledge the input of Grime and his dogs only in those inspections he (Harrison) first recommended: the holiday apartments, the Murats' villa, vehicles owned or driven by Robert Murat only

Areas in and around PdL.

That's it.

He never wanted clothing sniffed by the dogs at all

Neither the Renault Scenic.

Neither the McCanns' rented villa, where Madeleine never lived.
 
Implicitly, if not explicitly, there is, in the files, criticism of Grime, contained in the reports of Harrison.

First, it is clear that Harrison never wanted inspections of:

vehicles, besides those of Robert Murat's

Clothing. Thank goodness, none of Robert Murat's clothing was strewn over a floor for dogs to trample over and sniff. Neither should the McCanns' clothing have been. Especially not the same clothing twice in different spots. For a clue of what Grime, acting autonomously, was about, there, you need to go to Detroit and the Bianca Jones case, where you will find Grime's modus operandi exactly replicated from Praia da Luz.

The McCanns' rented villa, simply because Madeleine never lived there.

If you read Mark Harrison's retrospective summary of all searches, you will find he is careful to acknowledge the input of Grime and his dogs only in those inspections he (Harrison) first recommended: the holiday apartments, the Murats' villa, vehicles owned or driven by Robert Murat only

Areas in and around PdL.

That's it.

He never wanted clothing sniffed by the dogs at all

Neither the Renault Scenic.

Neither the McCanns' rented villa, where Madeleine never lived.
Mark Harrison's retrospective summary of searches. I have highlighted the searches where Harrison acknowledges the input of Grime and his dogs: The holiday apartments, the villa of the Murats' and areas around PdL.

While Mark Harrison did want an inspection of vehicles, he only wanted those owned or driven by Robert Murat sniffed by the dogs, unlike the Renault Scenic, humanly examined before the dog inspections.

Edited to add: Note also that Mark Harrison waited until AFTER witnessing the 'inspections' of vehicles to issue PJ personnel with translated NPIA instructions on how to conduct dog-inspections in buildings and vehicles.

The timeline of these searches was as follows:



On 31-07-07 the PJ conducted canine searches with a search warrant at apartments in Praia da Luz that had been previously occupied by the McCanns and their friends.



On 01-08-07 the PJ and GNR assisted by a canine, conducted searches on the eastern beach and wasteland in Praia da Luz.



On 02-08-07 the PJ conducted a search warrant at a villa in Praia da Luz currently occupied by the McCann family.



Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.



On 03-08-07 PJ and GNR officers were given instruction based on translated extracts from NPIA doctrine on search management and procedures. This focused on search procedures relating to buildings and vehicles.



On 04-08-07 and 05-08-07 a search warrant was executed at the villa and gardens belonging to the PJ suspect Robert Murat. This search involved both PJ and GNR personnel supported by civil defence, geophysical equipment operators and a canine handler.



On 06-08-07 ten vehicles were searched associated to the enquiry.



On 07-08-07 the western beach and remaining wasteland areas were searched using canine and GNR personnel.



On 08-08-07 the drains around the apartment block where Madeleine McCann disappeared from were subject to a visual inspection by PJ officers.
 
Last edited:
Mark Harrison's retrospective summary of searches. I have highlighted the searches where Harrison acknowledges the input of Grime and his dogs: The holiday apartments, the villa of the Murats' and areas around PdL.

While Mark Harrison did want an inspection of vehicles, he only wanted those owned or driven by Robert Murat sniffed by the dogs, unlike the Renault Scenic, humanly examined before the dog inspections.

Edited to add: Note also that Mark Harrison waited until AFTER witnessing the 'inspections' of vehicles to issue PJ personnel with translated NPIA instructions on how to conduct dog-inspections in buildings and vehicles.

The timeline of these searches was as follows:
Here is what Mark Harrison had to say about vehicles before inspections were carried out:

Murat's Vehicles.

All vehicles Murat has had access to have been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however they may all benefit from a full search by the EVRD and CSI dogs. They may be able to detect whether a dead body has been transported in one of the vehicles for intelligence purposes or detect human blood deposits that can be recovered and
examined in a laboratory for Madeleine McCann's blood.


No mention of the Renault Scenic, unlike vehicles of Robert Murat's not humanly examined before any dog-inspection.

Of course, I should make plain Robert Murat's aruguido status was lifted, at the same time as that of the McCanns, and for the same reason: no evidence against any of the three to implicate them in anything untoward that befell Madeleine.
 
What happened about that extradition exclusive?

Didn't that come from Jon Clarke/The Olive Press?
Perhaps someone on here with access might be able to provide an update on his 'exclusive'...

Anyway not to worry, I'm sure HCW will come good in the next 24 hours and tell us all about it.
 
Last edited:
It could explain a few things. CB is the kind of person who could find his way into the middle of something. He knew people and the area and flew under the radar of the law. It’s a possibility IMO.

It is a possibility, I agree. I can, at a long push, maybe see him as having had some opportunistic involvement somewhere along the way, but really not in the way he's being accused of. I guess it all comes back and down to whether we (as informed-by-the-past individuals) believe (or not) in the starting premise of an abduction for which, to date, there is zero evidence.

JMO as always.
 
It is a possibility, I agree. I can, at a long push, maybe see him as having had some opportunistic involvement somewhere along the way, but really not in the way he's being accused of. I guess it all comes back and down to whether we (as informed-by-the-past individuals) believe (or not) in the starting premise of an abduction for which, to date, there is zero evidence.

JMO as always.
If there is 'zero evidence' of an abduction, why did the Portuguese prosecutors write this?

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.​

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.​

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.​

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.​


And why did Inspector Carlos conclude that, at the moment of Kate's alert, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant?
 
The experts said no inference could be drawn from the alerts... So how did they become a proven fact confirming cadaver odour

IMO this is where the plaintiffs rather than the defendant ran into burden of proof problems.

No one can 'disprove' the alerts. Rather the corroborating forensics recovered did not stand up. But this was all acknowledged in the book.

The plaintiffs needed to show that the book was materially different to the state of the investigation - which was obviously fairly impossible to do from an evidential standpoint i.e. what witnesses do you call to prove this?
 
Implicitly, if not explicitly, there is, in the files, criticism of Grime, contained in the reports of Harrison.

RSBM

I am not going to go through all those posts you made, because I don't think they have much to do with the case as it was actually argued in Court.

Was Harrison called as a witness? Was evidence of abduction introduced into Court? Did the plaintiffs produce a dog expert?

Courts deal with the evidence they are presented with.
 
Didn't that come from Jon Clarke/The Olive Press?
Perhaps someone on here with access might be able to provide an update on his 'exclusive'...

Anyway not to worry, I'm sure HCW will come good in the next 24 hours and tell us all about it.

Yes - yet amazingly no other media source every confirmed it, despite him having quotes from HCW

That was months ago!
 
RSBM

I am not going to go through all those posts you made, because I don't think they have much to do with the case as it was actually argued in Court.

Was Harrison called as a witness? Was evidence of abduction introduced into Court? Did the plaintiffs produce a dog expert?

Courts deal with the evidence they are presented with.
You don't think that the deployment of a corrupt and freelance English dog-handler had much to do with ill-founded suspicion against the McCanns?

Right-oh.
 
IMO this is where the plaintiffs rather than the defendant ran into burden of proof problems.

No one can 'disprove' the alerts. Rather the corroborating forensics recovered did not stand up. But this was all acknowledged in the book.

The plaintiffs needed to show that the book was materially different to the state of the investigation - which was obviously fairly impossible to do from an evidential standpoint i.e. what witnesses do you call to prove this?
(snipped)

No one can 'disprove' the alerts

Yes, they can.

They just have to quote Mark Harrison, who dismissed the alerts.

To go further, you could look to Eddie ignoring cuddlecat when it was in front of his nose; yet alerting to it, after the toy had been hidden in a cupboard.
 
It is a possibility, I agree. I can, at a long push, maybe see him as having had some opportunistic involvement somewhere along the way, but really not in the way he's being accused of. I guess it all comes back and down to whether we (as informed-by-the-past individuals) believe (or not) in the starting premise of an abduction for which, to date, there is zero evidence.

JMO as always.
The lack of evidence of abduction has been ignored by operation Grange for some reason.
 
The lack of evidence of abduction has been ignored by operation Grange for some reason.
Because the folks behind operation grange are smart; whereas the people who ignore their wisdom only think they are smart.
 
Because the folks behind operation grange are smart; whereas the people who ignore their wisdom only think they are smart.
Or it's because the folk behind Oprtation Grange thought they were smart and acted on their beliefs rather than on evidence.
 
Another here today.

More detail.

 
IMO this is where the plaintiffs rather than the defendant ran into burden of proof problems.


Or it's because the folk behind Oprtation Grange thought they were smart and acted on their beliefs rather than on evidence.
They believe the mccanns are innocent based on the available evidence. Therefore that makes abduction by far the most likely reason for the disappearance.. Not only that it now seems the Germans have concrete evidence to support abduction
 
IMO this is where the plaintiffs rather than the defendant ran into burden of proof problems.

No one can 'disprove' the alerts. Rather the corroborating forensics recovered did not stand up. But this was all acknowledged in the book.


Or it's because the folk behind Oprtation Grange thought they were smart and acted on their beliefs rather than on evidence.
They believe the mccanns are innocent based on the available evidence. Therefore that makes abduction by far the most likely reason for the disappearance.. Not only that it now seems the Germans have concrete evidence o support abduction
 
They believe the mccanns are innocent based on the available evidence. Therefore that makes abduction by far the most likely reason for the disappearance.. Not only that it now seems the Germans have concrete evidence o support abduction
That remains to be seen. Will they follow through with charges or not ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
1,623
Total visitors
1,799

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,165
Members
228,015
Latest member
Amberraff
Back
Top