Madeleine McCann

[John G]

I think the evidence of the dogs is valid - the fact that they corroborated each other in the location behind the sofa, and the fact that they didn't alert in any other apartment or home, or near any other cars.

Kate has never found anyone to corroborate the story that she had been in contact with no fewer than 6 corpses shortly before her holiday

Kate's actions immediately following her discovery are massive red flags: leaving the twins unattended, IMMEDIATELY assuming and very noisily announcing an abduction rather than the more likely scenario of Madeleine wandering off in search of her parents

The fact that not one but several family members and friends were immediately told the shutters had been smashed or jemmied, which was simply not true

The fact that Kate invented a story about the curtains whooshing up into the air when she opened the door, whereas police crime scene photos showed them very neatly tucked down between the bed and the wall. Did she tuck them in herself before calling police? Or is she making up stories?

Refused a polygraph.

Refused to answer questions.

Immediately sought to dismiss the sniffer dogs evidence instead of being frantic with worry wanting to know if it was true.

As a father there is no way I would've fled the country on being made arguido. I would've stayed and done everything possible to cooperate and clear my name in order to focus police on other suspects. I could never have come home and abandoned what I thought was my missing child.

I've already dealt with the unreliability of the canine evidence. Eddie's reliability is destroyed by the Jersey case debacle. Evidence from Keela is obviously false, or at least seriously undermined, because not a microscopic trace of blood was ever found by the investigation-anywhere.

Shutters? No such statement was made, that's simply a myth. In fact, only Kate made a comment about the shutters, and that was simply to say they were raised. This statement was never altered. Moreover, the fact was confirmed by another independent witness, Amy Tierney. The story concerning the shutters being being "jemmied" originated from a Yorkshire Post story, following an interview with Trish Cameron, Madeline's aunt.

Curtains? Kate said they were open and...that's all!

Refused to take a polygraph? Nope, that's not true either. In fact, they weren't even asked to take a polygraph.

Refused to answer questions? Kate refused to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer after being made arguida (suspect). I call that sensible.

Fled the country?

"Six corpses"? This is complete twaddle. There's not a shred of evidence that Kate ever made such a comment. The report originated from a Portuguese tabloid, and then was simply repeated by the British press.

The moral of the story? Don't believe everything you read in the press.

[John G]

Regarding Keela and the "blood evidence" it's also worth pointing out that the dog would alert to dried blood from a living person, which surely makes this type of evidence pretty much useless, especially when you consider the potential time lag: "Blood could be invisible to the naked eye, but Keela will detect it. It doesn't matter if it's hundreds of years old." (Martin Grime, the emphasis is mine).

Martin Grime also said that a cadaver dog will alert to any part of a human being that's decomposing, such as hair bones or flesh, which creates an enormous amount of possibilities, such as a child falling over and grazing their skin, or even gum bleeds: https://madeleinemccannthetruth.word...on-those-dogs/

[Henry Flower]

I've already dealt with the unreliability of the canine evidence. Eddie's reliability is destroyed by the Jersey case debacle. Evidence from Keela is obviously false, or at least seriously undermined, because not a microscopic trace of blood was ever found by the investigation-anywhere.

Demonstrating that they were not always 100% correct is not the same as demonstrating they were never correct, let alone the fact that they alerted to no scents in any other apartment, any other car during that investigation. The only places either of them alerted to blood or cadaverine were in the apartment of a missing child and that child's parents' rented car.... Fine, let's just call that one almighty coincidence....

Shutters? No such statement was made, that's simply a myth. In fact, only Kate made a comment about the shutters, and that was simply to say they were raised. This statement was never altered. Moreover, the fact was confirmed by another independent witness, Amy Tierney. The story concerning the shutters being being "jemmied" originated from a Yorkshire Post story, following an interview with Trish Cameron, Madeline's aunt.

Nobody said it was a "statement", and therefore the unaltered nature of the non-existent statement is irrelevant - it was the clear and consistent impression the McCanns gave to several relatives and friends hours after the discovery.

Trish Cameron - "They last checked at half past nine and they were all sound asleep, sleeping, windows shut, shutters shut. Kate went back at 10 o'clock to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open or whatever you call it and Madeleine was missing...” (Notice how accurate her recall is, how it tallies exactly with K&G's timeline? So - front door lying open? Shutters jemmied open?)

Brian Healy - "Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone. She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open."

Jon Corner - "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing It looks as though someone had gone straight past the twins to get to her."

Jill (or Gill) Renwick - "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine."

Curtains? Kate said they were open and...that's all!

Wrong, unless I was hallucinating when I saw and heard her, on camera, describe and demonstrate with her arms the dramatic whoosh of the curtains blowing out into the room when she opened the door after it had blown closed. You're wrong. You need to study this a bit more deeply. Perhaps you've only read her official police statements? She embellishes considerably later. Maybe you can explain why.

Refused to take a polygraph? Nope, that's not true either. In fact, they weren't even asked to take a polygraph.

Another straw-man: I never said they were asked to. They offered to, in September 07 after being made arguidos. When an independent expert offered to carry one out they changed their minds and refused the offer, offering the excuse that it wouldn't be legally acceptable in a Portuguese court. So what? Passing it would've been a real win in the court of public opinion. As their odious spokesbast*rd Clarence Mitchell explained, they didn't need to take one because they are telling the truth. I think we call that begging the question.

Refused to answer questions? Kate refused to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer after being made arguida (suspect). I call that sensible.

Yes I agree, unless your child is alive, and you are innocent, and your only concern is to give as much information as possible in order that your child might yet be found.

Fled the country?

Uh, yes.

"Six corpses"? This is complete twaddle. There's not a shred of evidence that Kate ever made such a comment. The report originated from a Portuguese tabloid, and then was simply repeated by the British press.

Now there you may have a point.

The moral of the story? Don't believe everything you read in the press.

I didn't. I've read two books, the entire police files, and watched every interview they've given, and all the documentaries. But hey, thanks for patronising me, it makes a change from the straw-man arguments.

As Gerry himself said:

"One good thing to come out of all this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't." - Yeah, that must be a good thing, when you think your daughter may be alive and suffering, and you want her home as quickly as possible...

[louisa]

A good post, Henry.

As for one of the group going back every half hour to check on the kids - we have to take that with a pinch of salt.

One of the waiters stated he only saw one of them leave the restaurant during the time the group were there.

[John G]

I've already dealt with the unreliability of the canine evidence. Eddie's reliability is destroyed by the Jersey case debacle. Evidence from Keela is obviously false, or at least seriously undermined, because not a microscopic trace of blood was ever found by the investigation-anywhere.

Demonstrating that they were not always 100% correct is not the same as demonstrating they were never correct, let alone the fact that they alerted to no scents in any other apartment, any other car during that investigation. The only places either of them alerted to blood or cadaverine were in the apartment of a missing child and that child's parents' rented car.... Fine, let's just call that one almighty coincidence....

Shutters? No such statement was made, that's simply a myth. In fact, only Kate made a comment about the shutters, and that was simply to say they were raised. This statement was never altered. Moreover, the fact was confirmed by another independent witness, Amy Tierney. The story concerning the shutters being being "jemmied" originated from a Yorkshire Post story, following an interview with Trish Cameron, Madeline's aunt.

Nobody said it was a "statement", and therefore the unaltered nature of the non-existent statement is irrelevant - it was the clear and consistent impression the McCanns gave to several relatives and friends hours after the discovery.

Trish Cameron - "They last checked at half past nine and they were all sound asleep, sleeping, windows shut, shutters shut. Kate went back at 10 o'clock to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open or whatever you call it and Madeleine was missing...” (Notice how accurate her recall is, how it tallies exactly with K&G's timeline? So - front door lying open? Shutters jemmied open?)

Brian Healy - "Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone. She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open."

Jon Corner - "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing It looks as though someone had gone straight past the twins to get to her."

Jill (or Gill) Renwick - "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine."

Curtains? Kate said they were open and...that's all!

Wrong, unless I was hallucinating when I saw and heard her, on camera, describe and demonstrate with her arms the dramatic whoosh of the curtains blowing out into the room when she opened the door after it had blown closed. You're wrong. You need to study this a bit more deeply. Perhaps you've only read her official police statements? She embellishes considerably later. Maybe you can explain why.

Refused to take a polygraph? Nope, that's not true either. In fact, they weren't even asked to take a polygraph.

Another straw-man: I never said they were asked to. They offered to, in September 07 after being made arguidos. When an independent expert offered to carry one out they changed their minds and refused the offer, offering the excuse that it wouldn't be legally acceptable in a Portuguese court. So what? Passing it would've been a real win in the court of public opinion. As their odious spokesbast*rd Clarence Mitchell explained, they didn't need to take one because they are telling the truth. I think we call that begging the question.

Refused to answer questions? Kate refused to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer after being made arguida (suspect). I call that sensible.

Yes I agree, unless your child is alive, and you are innocent, and your only concern is to give as much information as possible in order that your child might yet be found.

Fled the country?

Uh, yes.

"Six corpses"? This is complete twaddle. There's not a shred of evidence that Kate ever made such a comment. The report originated from a Portuguese tabloid, and then was simply repeated by the British press.

Now there you may have a point.

The moral of the story? Don't believe everything you read in the press.

I didn't. I've read two books, the entire police files, and watched every interview they've given, and all the documentaries. But hey, thanks for patronising me, it makes a change from the straw-man arguments.

As Gerry himself said:

"One good thing to come out of all this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't." - Yeah, that must be a good thing, when you think your daughter may be alive and suffering, and you want her home as quickly as possible...

Okay let's focus on the fact, shall we? Firstly, the dogs. There is no documented evidence that they were ever successful. In fact, the only other documented case is the Jersey debacle. And this was what an official report from the Central Department of Criminal Investigation had to say:

"If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he's looking for, why, in most of the cases, do we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place he had already passed several times?

"On one of the films, it's possible to see that Eddie" sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air, and only after the toy is hidden does he mark it. Why didn't he signal it when he sniffed it the first time?

"Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts in the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and as already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found."

And this is what Martin Grime had to say:

"Blood that is subject to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location. It is possible, however, that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for dead body scent."

And he concluded:

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is cadaver scent contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

Well, as noted above, there is no "corroborating evidence", therefore the "evidence" from the dogs can be safely dispensed with.

Next, the shutters. As I've noted the McCanns' said nothing in their statement to the police about the shutters being "jemmied" etc, or to the witness Amy Tierney. And, frankly, I'm not interested in what your sensationalist books may have to say about other witness statements that do not form part of the official record, but are quoted from tabloid accounts. In any event, witnesses can miss-remember information over time, particularly if they've discussed events with other witnesses.

And why on earth would the McCann's seek to lie about such matters? I mean, it's not as if there weren't plenty of witnesses who could contradict them, such as the numerous police officers who entered the apartment, and the other 20 individuals the Keystone Cops allowed to contaminate the crime scene.

Kate may have said the curtains "whooshed". However, considering it was night time and the window was open this is perfectly plausible. Anyway, what does it matter? And who cares? It's not relevant to the case at all.

Polygraph? Are you winding me up? If the McCann's passed the test, conspiracy theorists such as yourself would have said that they're unreliable anyway. And, if they failed, you would say "told you so". Unbelievable! Anyway, back to the facts, you might want to read this report from the American Psychological Association, which highlights the fact that their entire basis is simply "theoretical", with no proven validity. http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

"Fled the country". Is this something you read in another one of your sensationalist books [I'm beginning to think that the best thing to do with them is to burn them]? I mean, you make it sound is if they went on the run following a jailbreak from Alcatraz, when a they did was leave Portugal!

Finally, please explain to me how the McCann's successfully disposed of a corpse, in a country they were unfamiliar with, to the extent that no remains were ever found.

[Henry Flower]

Okay let's focus on the fact, shall we? Firstly, the dogs. There is no documented evidence that they were ever successful. In fact, the only other documented case is the Jersey debacle. And this was what an official report from the Central Department of Criminal Investigation had to say:

"If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he's looking for, why, in most of the cases, do we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place he had already passed several times?

"On one of the films, it's possible to see that Eddie" sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air, and only after the toy is hidden does he mark it. Why didn't he signal it when he sniffed it the first time?

"Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts in the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and as already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found."

And this is what Martin Grime had to say:

"Blood that is subject to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location. It is possible, however, that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for dead body scent."

And he concluded:

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is cadaver scent contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

Well, as noted above, there is no "corroborating evidence", therefore the "evidence" from the dogs can be safely dispensed with.

Next, the shutters. As I've noted the McCanns' said nothing in their statement to the police about the shutters being "jemmied" etc, or to the witness Amy Tierney. And, frankly, I'm not interested in what your sensationalist books may have to say about other witness statements that do not form part of the official record, but are quoted from tabloid accounts. In any event, witnesses can miss-remember information over time, particularly if they've discussed events with other witnesses.

And why on earth would the McCann's seek to lie about such matters? I mean, it's not as if there weren't plenty of witnesses who could contradict them, such as the numerous police officers who entered the apartment, and the other 20 individuals the Keystone Cops allowed to contaminate the crime scene.

Kate may have said the curtains "whooshed". However, considering it was night time and the window was open this is perfectly plausible. Anyway, what does it matter? And who cares? It's not relevant to the case at all.

Polygraph? Are you winding me up? If the McCann's passed the test, conspiracy theorists such as yourself would have said that they're unreliable anyway. And, if they failed, you would say "told you so". Unbelievable! Anyway, back to the facts, you might want to read this report from the American Psychological Association, which highlights the fact that their entire basis is simply "theoretical", with no proven validity. http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

"Fled the country". Is this something you read in another one of your sensationalist books [I'm beginning to think that the best thing to do with them is to burn them]? I mean, you make it sound is if they went on the run following a jailbreak from Alcatraz, when a they did was leave Portugal!

Finally, please explain to me how the McCann's successfully disposed of a corpse, in a country they were unfamiliar with, to the extent that no remains were ever found.

Wow. You're a real pompous douche. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist", unless in your world the suspicion that people who have things to hide might actually try to hide them counts as a conspiracy. Grow up. Pray tell, which 'sensationalist' books have I read? Do you know?

You don't, so stick your insults back where they came from, you jerk.

[Henry Flower]

Stage 1 - "Kate only said the curtains were open, nothing else, so she didn't contradict the crime scene photos! Stop believing everything you read!"

Stage 2 - realizes he was wrong about that

Stage 3 - "Er, Kate may have invented a fanciful description of this pivotal event that is impossible according to the crime scene photos, but so what? That doesn't matter!! You must read sensationalist books I guess and you are a conspiracy theorist!"

When it's pointed out that your 'correction' of my facts was entirely wrong, and that she had in fact described exactly what I said she had, the adult response would be, "Oh, ok I was wrong about that. It's a bit weird that she later invented these dramatic details about finding her child missing..."

So goodbye, done with you, not wasting further time.

[John Wheat]

I don't know all the ins and outs of this case. However it seems to me Kate and Gerry are guilty of child neglect at best. They have also done some things that are extremely suspicious and I have the feeling that they are more concerned about themselves than Maddie. I also have the feeling that they liked or even got off on the attention they got from the media apart from whenever it was suggested that they were directly involved in Maddie's disappearance. I may of course be doing them a disservice however all things considered they according to their own testimony are guilty of child neglect. I would as I'm sure everyone who has posted on this thread like to know the truth and feel Kate and Gerry should be punished accordingly.

[John G]

Wow. You're a real pompous douche. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist", unless in your world the suspicion that people who have things to hide might actually try to hide them counts as a conspiracy. Grow up. Pray tell, which 'sensationalist' books have I read? Do you know?

You don't, so stick your insults back where they came from, you jerk.

Okay, you effectively accuse a couple of killing their own child on the basis of no substantive evidence whatsoever and I'm the bad guy? There's definitely something wrong with you, and I'll be sure to let you know what it is once I've figured out what it is.

[John G]

Stage 1 - "Kate only said the curtains were open, nothing else, so she didn't contradict the crime scene photos! Stop believing everything you read!"

Stage 2 - realizes he was wrong about that

Stage 3 - "Er, Kate may have invented a fanciful description of this pivotal event that is impossible according to the crime scene photos, but so what? That doesn't matter!! You must read sensationalist books I guess and you are a conspiracy theorist!"

When it's pointed out that your 'correction' of my facts was entirely wrong, and that she had in fact described exactly what I said she had, the adult response would be, "Oh, ok I was wrong about that. It's a bit weird that she later invented these dramatic details about finding her child missing..."

So goodbye, done with you, not wasting further time.

I have absolutely no idea what this post actually means. The fact is you haven't any substantive evidence against the McCann's, who you outrageously suggest were responsible for their own child's death.

Presumably out of shame you fail to address any of the substantive points I raised. Thus, the only concrete "evidence" you've alluded to is in respect of Eddie and Keela.

However, it's already been explained to you that Eddie's credibility is seriously undermined by the Jersey case. Even if this wasn't the case Martin Grime makes it clear that "no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." And there is no corroborating evidence, hence the alerts have no value.

Keela's evidence is worthless because no forensic traces of blood were discovered, so the dog obviously made a mistake.

This is another point you totally avoid.

You've also failed to address the issue of how the McCann's successfully disposed of the corpse, but then again, that would involve focussing on the facts.

Instead, all you can do is focus on some mumbo jumbo about whooshing curtains and jemmied locks.

Unbelievable!

[John G]

I don't know all the ins and outs of this case. However it seems to me Kate and Gerry are guilty of child neglect at best. They have also done some things that are extremely suspicious and I have the feeling that they are more concerned about themselves than Maddie. I also have the feeling that they liked or even got off on the attention they got from the media apart from whenever it was suggested that they were directly involved in Maddie's disappearance. I may of course be doing them a disservice however all things considered they according to their own testimony are guilty of child neglect. I would as I'm sure everyone who has posted on this thread like to know the truth and feel Kate and Gerry should be punished accordingly.

Yes, the McCann's are clearly guilty of leaving their very young children alone in the apartment, whilst they were socializing. I just wonder if they were a couple of working class parents, rather than middle class doctorsx, they would have got off so lightly.

[John Wheat]

Yes, the McCann's are clearly guilty of leaving their very young children alone in the apartment, whilst they were socializing. I just wonder if they were a couple of working class parents, rather than middle class doctorsx, they would have got off so lightly.

John I think if they were working class they would have been charged with child neglect and had the other two children taken off them. Having said that I'm not totally convinced the McCann's are only guilty of child neglect. However there is very little evidence of anything which if anything suggests to me a kidnapping by someone who is an experienced kidnapper and in all likeliness a paedophile. I suspect Maddie is dead and I dread to think what was done to Maddie before she was murdered.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

John I think if they were working class they would have been charged with child neglect and had the other two children taken off them. Having said that I'm not totally convinced the McCann's are only guilty of child neglect. However there is very little evidence of anything which if anything suggests to me a kidnapping by someone who is an experienced kidnapper and in all likeliness a paedophile. I suspect Maddie is dead and I dread to think what was done to Maddie before she was murdered.

Cheers John

well you can just ask kate or read her book. shell give you all the gory details.

[Hannibal Hayes]

So, this is where we are:

A 4yr old girl who disappears without trace. The options are that she was abducted by an intruder or the parents have knowledge of her disappearance. The parents were out with friends for dinner at the time of the disappearance.

Let’s break it down a bit more:

Maddie is seen alive after 5.30.

The McCann’s arrive at the Tappas Bar at 8.40. They had already been out five nights in a row and had set a pattern & every night for dinner at 8.30 sharp (late then?). They had reservations at the same restaurant each night & had six or seven bottles of wine when they had their dinner. So, when you start looking at the regularity of the same restaurant each night, probably a similar amount of alcohol, a regular pattern emerges. (Gives opportunity for someone to make a note of when they leave the table to check, who goes – man or woman etc).

Regular checks on the children were made but one of the people said he didn’t actually look into the room, he only listened outside.

Jane Tanner (one of their friends) says she saw Gerry & Jez Wilkins in the road during one of the later checks. Neither man saw Tanner but she also says she saw a man holding a child under his arm. Tanner’s sketch of where she saw Gerry & Jez doesn’t correspond with their position on the road. Jane Tanner’s account has to be discounted, for the reason that Gerry & Jez’s account tallies & also Kate says Jane didn’t leave the table that night.

In between Gerry doing his check & Kate discovering Madeleine was missing, Jane Tanner, her partner Russell & Matthew Oldfield, another in the group, are the only other 3 who claimed to have left the table that night. One of them ordered a steak which had to be reheated as he was away from the table for so long.

Kate discovers her daughter missing at 10pm.

Their other children, twins, were asleep in cots without blankets on a chilly night.

One of their friends offers to call the Police. Kate says they’ve already been called but their records show that they were not contacted until 10.40.

After the disappearance:

The intruder did not leave any evidence of their entry, presence, or exit from the apartment.

Most of their friends couldn't agree on their stories of how things went that night, who left the table, how often or times etc.

The parents didn't subsequently act in a way that most people think they should act.

The room the McCann´s stayed in, was let TWICE to other people before the forensics decided to extract DNA from the room.

The hire car wasn’t hired until 25 days after Madeline disappeared.

According to Kate’s Mum, Kate called her that evening & muttered something about an accident. Her Mum texted her (only once) at 12:31 & Kate responds an hour later.

Supposedly, Gerry’s phone had quite a few contacts on it with numbers but not actual names.

In summary:

We have a scenario where ‘regular’ checks were made on the children by different people. Between checks, an abductor took Madeline.

Either that or her parents killed her & disposed of her body, making sure they were not seen disposing of the body where no-one would find her, between 5.30 & 8.30.

Alternatively, she woke up & wandered off, in an opposite direction to where her parents were & someone (in the right place at the right time) abducted her from the street.

Before anyone jumps in, I’m no expert on this case & all the above have been taken from books or the internet. Therefore I am unable to confirm that they are 100% true ……..

[Pcdunn]

One thing I've read is the idea they might have sold their child to a stranger, but that seems a bit extreme, even for neglectful parents. Still, it would account for the "she's been taken!" shout, maybe.