Discussion in 'Madeleine McCann' started by Mercsw, Mar 2, 2019.
Sorry I quoted your post by mistake!
I think the dogs simply illustrate how police must follow the evidence in their investigation, as opposed to arguing about evidential standards at a trial that hasn't even happened.
The main use of dogs is to find more evidence, or to lead investigators to one theory over another. For instance you will see that one was used in the Helen Bailey case and the dog found signs of a corpse. But the police kept this knowledge secret. Instead they refocussed their main efforts on the house as the primary crime scene. The dog doesn't tell us how Helen died. But police now know to concentrate on finding out where her body is hidden and downgrade the theory she has gone away.
So in this case, looking at 5A the cadaver dog suggests to Mark Harrison and PJ to focus on theories where M died in the apartment as opposed to human trafficking or wandering off. This is key information that remains central to the working theories of the case. Especially it begins to confirm Harrison's own working theory, and means police can reduce focus on distractions (e.g. 100s of Maddie sightings around the world)
The blood dog helps in a similar way - it lead the investigators to forensic evidence which might have been cleaned up so humans could not find it - namely blood behind the sofa. Unfortunately examination of this trace evidence brought nothing further.
But you can how the two dogs taken together provide a valuable investigative lead, and led them to corroborating forensics.
Watching the documentary, it proves that it was literally impossible for Mccanes to hide a body after Maddie's disappearance. If they did it before ( early evening on May 3rd), it is plausible that they decided to stage everything and go to dinner with friends like nothing happened. Could they do that? It requires huge emotional strength do not show any pain. Some people ( like Chris Watts) had no problem looking normal and happy after the murder but the Mccanes are different story...So I am not sure. Documentary does not provide any proof when Maddie was seen last on May 3rd...
Noharg, no problem
In what way was it "literally impossible"?
For instance in Kate's own book, she details how she and Gerry were out by themselves searching before dawn the next morning with no one else around.
It would seem to me to have been quite possible to stash a body somewhere the night before and then move it to a better place the next morning .... in particular the town had a lot of empty residences at that time of year
Not saying this happened but it would seem possible.
My understanding of the PJ case is there is a confirmed and reliable external sighting of M at 5.30pm
I believe some of that evidence may have been withheld
Does anyone know if Madeleine was fully potty trained?
Oh ok, I did not know about Kate's book. Before documentary I followed the case by watching all kind of videos on YT and my opinion was that parents were guilty or knew something. Documentary makes it all look like The Mccanes were never left alone and media and people were watching them pretty much 24/7 ( I guess its is not the case)...But it seems that doco proved that DNA evidents found in rental car was faulty ... It makes then look much less guilty.
My feeling that Maddie most likely is not alive because the girl with such a rare eye condition would be so hard to hide, somebody would definitely notice something at some point...
And I wish testing the twins would be done ( I doubt though the Mccanes would allow it)...
This is my big issue with the doco - that it misses lots of primary statements and evidence to indulge in wild speculation
The Knox doco was the same. There is a vast amount of primary sources that the doco doesn't bother with.
Well stated. I agree. I watch everyday for news that the recovered DNA will be tested with current advancements, especially with concern that the lab that did the original DNA tests was closed because of too many errors across the board. I have also come across references that the lab knew and stated they knew that the complexity of the required DNA testing was beyond the labs ability at the time. The clock is ticking on Operation Grange funding ... however, a credible scientist has offered to test without charge. Madeleine deserves this.
I was wondering about other children who went missing in Portugal...
A boy named - Rui Pedro Teixeira Mendon - went missing 5 years before Maddy & was identified through child pornography photographs
"On 1 September 1998, 13 police forces busted an international child pornography ring known as the Wonderland Club. The operative was code-named Operation Cathedral and resulted in the confiscation of 750,000 images and videos depicting 1,263 different children. Rui Pedro was among the few children (16 only) that could be identified. However, his whereabouts remain unknown. Police suspect that he was murdered by his abductors after being abused on camera for other members of the paedophile ring."
Rui Pedro Teixeira Mendonça - Wikipedia
I'm not sure about this title - 30 children missing in Portugal since Maddy!? I hope not! There should be a spotlight on every missing child, it's just sad that this is not the case
HuffPost is now part of Oath
I found this too -
Map showing distribution of Portugal's missing children.
which hopefully shows a map of an unfortunate 13 missing children in Portugal...
I'm not taking sides by posting this - I just hope the McCanns are innocent. I would be so horrified if they were not... i'm open to anything tho
This is definitely worth a listen, 6 episodes so far and very insightful:
1000's of children go missing in the UK every year.
Of course most of them are teenagers. it is M's age which makes the case unusual.
I'm about to watch episode 3 of this documentary now, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the maps and visuals it shows.
I don't know why, but I guess I thought of the vacation resort as a kind of gated community or area. But episode 1 showed that, even though suite 5A was within visual range from the tapas bar, in order to get from the bar to the apartment, you essentially had to exit the resort, go out onto a public street, walk up the sidewalk and up to the door of 5A which, by the way, faced this public street.
And as I saw that, I was just in shock. Like how in the world did it actually seem reasonable to seven adults to leave their children alone and unsupervised with that kind of locational setup? It literally makes no sense to me.
Even if you're not thinking anything sinister because nothing bad happens in that town, toddlers can get into all sorts of trouble on their own. What if Madeleine had a nightmare, and in her fear she ran out to the public street and into the path of a coming car?
I guess if the apartment door faced the tapas bar, I still wouldn't agree with it, but I could understand someone thinking, "well, there's nowhere she can go except towards us." But that's not how it was, and I don't think I'll ever understand it.
Have similiar thoughts ... I came across an article that stated that one of the couples in the group had a baby monitor, and had not been part of the check-ins ... leads me to think there was some level of understanding of the need for supervision around that table of friends ... but how much understanding does it take before a person can be negligent -
My personal opinion on the dogs: I just kind of rolled my eyes while watching the dogs "hit"on blood/cadaver. I'm not saying that the dogs aren't capable of smelling blood or human decomposition. But the handler of these dogs was clearly leading them. And the results of the DNA testing on the areas that the dogs "hit" did not provide anything conclusive. No surprise there.
I mean, what should we infer based on the dogs' hits? That some time after 5:30 but before 8:00, Madeleine had an accident or was killed by Kate/Gerry inside of the apartment, with the other two little ones present? And then what, Gerry places her on the shelf in the closet while they get ready for dinner? And Kate gets out of the shower and says "No, Gerry, not in the closet, I don't want my new tennis outfits ruined!" Gerry: "my apologies love, where then?" Kate: "oh I don't know, just toss her behind the sofa for now! And bring me a glass of wine!". And then a short time later, Kate says "I'll read the twins a bedtime story while you dump Madeleine, do be careful not to get caught!" Gerry, on his way out the door, carrying a concealed Madeleine: "not to worry love, I'll make it so that she's never found. Cheers!"
Really, does this make any sense? And then they go to dinner with their group of friends as though nothing is wrong?
I read this supposed dialogue in the actual voices of Kate and Gerry, and it just sounded so odd!
But I have to agree. The dogs were introduced about three months after the disappearance, and we're talking about a hotel room. Did the hotel keep it closed off for all that time? If not, what else happened in that room in between?
Or what about before? The documentary mentions dogs being able to sense human cadaverine from a 40-year-old grave, if I recall correctly. If there was cadaverine in the room, can we be sure it's Madeleine's and not someone else's who died there years prior? Can cadaverine be produced in three hours, from the last sighting until dinner time?
At the end, as you say, none of this led anywhere. But I suppose it's still good to get a glimpse of how things happened in sequence.
BBM - Well you do realize I wasn't being serious, right?
I don’t remember information about lack of photos, phones being turned off, a makeup photo, or Indian doctors. Do you remember which episode this was in?
I agree. I’m not sure why people feel this wasn’t possible. There have been more than one case of girls, much older, pre-teens, taken from their own homes while their parents were in the house. These children were alone it would’ve been very easy for someone to go in and take one of them.
You could’ve had either a pedophile or traffickers watching these kids for days, watching the parents leave the kids alone at dinner time, and just seize the opportunity.
Some of the folks that worked in the “kids club” where the children of this group of friends were spending their days could have been involved. If you want to go to the conspiracy theory route.
It could’ve been lots of different scenarios. But this was not a terribly difficult thing to imagine happening. It happens every day, in every country in the world. Children disappear.
And if you think there are not pedophiles attracted to three-year-olds, you’d be wrong.