Madeleine McCann

[Sunny Delight]

There was a Portuguese woman who spoke to the PJ as well. Maybe her testimony is interesting to anyone who doesn't believe that Smith saw the perpetrator. At 9:58pm this lady was leaving her boyfriends apartment and she was parked in the Ocean club carpark. She remembered the time as she looked at her phone and was texting as she made her way towards the car. She saw nothing untoward and the area was quiet although she did notice a white peugeot quite near the McCann's apartment although she was unsure how close parked near the footpath. She didn't take much notice though. It was only the next week after she thought about the car she reported it to Police. So is it possible this car was a getaway vehicle? It was never traced.

[Paddy]

5) Maddie's DNA was not found in the rental car, only a mix of other family members. Finding her DNA in the apartment would be unsurprising as she was known to have been there because she was on holiday there.

Her DNA found in the apartment was from blood under the tile, in an area where cadaverine was detected by the other dog, behind the sofa. The area was said to have been cleaned so it would be an unlikely place to find her blood. I did wonder if Mr and Mrs Mccann were trying to mask dna when they threw themselves firstly on the floor on the balcony and also on the bed in their room. I found it a quite strange thing to do. As doctors I am sure they are forensically aware why would they mess a crime scene, just looked strange to me ? They changed their story so much to suit the findings also....Like DNA the dogs markings are not enough on their own and would not stand in court alone. They are a very good pointer though.

[Abby Normal]

5) Maddie's DNA was not found in the rental car, only a mix of other family members. Finding her DNA in the apartment would be unsurprising as she was known to have been there because she was on holiday there.

Her DNA found in the apartment was from blood under the tile, in an area where cadaverine was detected by the other dog, behind the sofa. The area was said to have been cleaned so it would be an unlikely place to find her blood. I did wonder if Mr and Mrs Mccann were trying to mask dna when they threw themselves firstly on the floor on the balcony and also on the bed in their room. I found it a quite strange thing to do. As doctors I am sure they are forensically aware why would they mess a crime scene, just looked strange to me ? They changed their story so much to suit the findings also....Like DNA the dogs markings are not enough on their own and would not stand in court alone. They are a very good pointer though.

Yeah number 5 above another misleading falsehood from the mccann enablers. The dna in the boot of the car could be maddies or it could be a mix of the mom and dad. And of course theyre going to twist blood being found in the aprtment to just dna.
its One blatent erroneous statement, misleading misnomer and twisted fact after another and why im not wasting my time responding any more.

to me its rather obvious something happened to maddie on or near that couch, and the portugese police were all over it. But of course tje mccann enablers will just try to depict them as keystone cops who tried to frame the mccans from the beginning. Oh well worked well for OJ.

[JeffHamm]

Regarding Eddie the cadaver dog giving off a scent reaction to the Mcann's hire car and whether it was coaxed or not, this is what the dogs trainer Martin Grime had to say [ I have underlined the important parts].

Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at
Portimao. The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details, were
parked on an empty floor with 20-30 feet between each. The vehicle
placement video recording and management of the process was conducted
by the PJ. The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a
vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family,
the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert
indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and
barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from
the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door.

In other words Martin Grime did not know that was the Mcanns hire car,. So how could he have coaxed Eddie to find a scent in the right one?

Regards Darryl

The video recording of the dog searching the car and alerting shows the dog being redirected back to the car a number of times before it alerts. The dog all but ignored the car after an initial sniff. The dog may have been redirected back to a number of different cars, but that is just going to increase the dog eventually false alerting. And there was none of Maddie's DNA found in the car anyway.

Look, if the McCann's were involved in her death then they must have gotten rid of her body long before they rented the car. There's just no place to store her for that amount of time, and it would be next to impossible for them to prevent transfer of biological material, like hair, bodily fluids, etc. The dog evidence is weak and highly suspect, and it is prone to error which is why it requires real evidence to corroborate it and none was found in the car.

I have no problem with considering the McCann's as potentially guilty, but I also have no problem with considering them as potentially not guilty. My opinion is that, based upon the evidence presented, when stripped of emotionally charged baggage and just looked at for what it is, that on the balance of probabilities they aren't involved. I could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure if there was evidence that was sufficient to convince the police of their guilt but not sufficient to bring charges, the UK would not be pumping money into an investigation following up other potential leads. That, while not evidential to the case directly, is an indication that the people who have access to the actual information and evidence do not agree with those who don't and are convinced beyond any doubt of their guilt. When the police believe they know who is guilty, but also recognize they cannot bring charges, they stop looking for other people (as the Portugese Police did - they believed the McCann's to be guilty, but their belief was based upon a near impossible explanation involving a freezer and so forth, and a story that the lead investigator had used before to get a false confession in a similar case - hence I tend not to put much stock in that).

The press reported on various findings in apartment 5A that were just not true, which is why the McCann's won a lawsuit against the press. It's also what makes it really unwise to draw a conclusion from what is reported in the press - almost all of it is practically fabricated. Unfortunately, the misrepresentation that went on in the press at the time (again, they won a lawsuit against the press for that - it's not my opinion, it was the legal outcome of a court case - the press grossly misrepresented the facts against the McCann's) continues to have an impact on people's views to this day. It also means, going back and reading the "facts" from the news is almost pointless because it is known that the press presentation is a misrepresentation of fact.

That's why, in many respects, my opinion is, to be frank, largely based upon the behaviour of those who actually have access to the actual evidence and information available, and that is the police themselves. The fact they are willing to continue to pursue lines of investigation that are not directed at the McCann's themselves is a clear indication that the actual evidence, the actual facts, do not point them at the McCann's. That is really why it looks to me that the McCann's are probably not involved.

Much of my argument about things like the dog's and such is really trying to just point out that the press reports are no where near as solid as the press made them out to be. We know the press reports are all but bogus, yet people still research this case by consulting the information reported in the press, and it's so coloured their views that they can't separate out their emotional responses to the characters as portrayed by the press and see any call for an objective evaluation of things as some version of having sympathy for the devil. I only am concerned that the guilty party be found and brought to justice, but to do so that requires that care is taken not to railroad an innocent party. If the McCann's are guilty, then an objective evaulation of the evidence, which we don't have access to but the police do, will lead the police to that conclusion. And if the McCann's are not guilty, then someone else is, and the police will follow that line of investigation. They appear to be doing the latter, and since I know I only have access to false, or at best highly mis-represented information, I'm trying to see if anything can be salvaged by being aware of where that misripesentation can occur. And the dog evidence is one because alerting is not evidence if it is not backed up by something else.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Yeah number 5 above another misleading falsehood from the mccann enablers. The dna in the boot of the car could be maddies or it could be a mix of the mom and dad. And of course theyre going to twist blood being found in the aprtment to just dna.
its One blatent erroneous statement, misleading misnomer and twisted fact after another and why im not wasting my time responding any more.

No, you need to read what I said. They did NOT find Maddie's DNA in the car. They found a mix of DNA from family members; not could be a mix, it was a mix.

What I can't understand is where in scheme of things is the blood supposed to come from? The presented story is that they overdosed her, so how does she bleed from that? Where in that scenario does the blood come from?

Change the murder to blunt force trauma? That's a very bloody crime. There should be tonnes of it, cleaned or otherwise, few squirts of luminal and you've got the place glowing like Christmas. None of the murder stories fit. If she was overdosed, there wouldn't be blood to be found. If she's killed by injury, there would be blood evidence all over.

Seriously, the press was sued for presenting patently false information. I'm not defending the McCann's per se, despite what you may think, what I'm trying to do, and maybe not getting this across, is to try and first see where the press presentation misrepresents things - and we know they did because they were found guilty of doing just that. And it is what was presented as the most damning evidence that is known to have been misrepresented. They were severely chastised for gross dereliction of duty at the time.

I'm going to have to go back and check, but if my recollection serves me right (and I'll correct myself if it doesn't), but the actual test results from behind the couch did not indicate Maddie's blood was found there. I have a vague, and possibly erroneous, recollection that in fact no blood at all was found in the apartment. The presentation of all of that in the press was, in fact, a lie (which is one of the reasons why the press lost their case). I'll have to go back and double check on that though, and will confirm one way or the other on that. (Might take a few days, but I'll do my best to be punctual).

to me its rather obvious something happened to maddie on or near that couch, and the portugese police were all over it. But of course tje mccann enablers will just try to depict them as keystone cops who tried to frame the mccans from the beginning. Oh well worked well for OJ.

And again, the Portuguese Police were being directed by a fellow who also was known to have coerced another family into falsely confessing to murdering their child and storing her in a freezer - which is what he was trying to get the McCann's to do. I'm not denigrating the entire Portuguese Police here, rather, pointing to the source of the problem, which was the fellow heading them at the time. Also, remember, his book was barred from further publication by a Portuguese court of law because it was a patently false presentation of information.

Honest, I don't know for sure if the McCanns are or are not responsible. I do know almost all of the information as presented in the press was so misrepresented that it is impossible to know what was and what was not actually found. I also know the UK police have been continuing to investigate other potential leads, and do not appear to be focusing on the McCann's. Given they have access to the actual evidence, and disregarding conspiracy theories around the police wanting to protect the McCanns for some unknown reason, that leads me to the conclusion that the police know there is nothing to implicate them and so on the balance of probabilities, it's an abduction. I might be wrong. What I argue against, however, is continued biased evaluations based upon emotional responses as a result of the known falsehoods reported by the popular press at the time.

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

The video recording of the dog searching the car and alerting shows the dog being redirected back to the car a number of times before it alerts. The dog all but ignored the car after an initial sniff. The dog may have been redirected back to a number of different cars, but that is just going to increase the dog eventually false alerting. And there was none of Maddie's DNA found in the car anyway.

Look, if the McCann's were involved in her death then they must have gotten rid of her body long before they rented the car. There's just no place to store her for that amount of time, and it would be next to impossible for them to prevent transfer of biological material, like hair, bodily fluids, etc. The dog evidence is weak and highly suspect, and it is prone to error which is why it requires real evidence to corroborate it and none was found in the car.

I have no problem with considering the McCann's as potentially guilty, but I also have no problem with considering them as potentially not guilty. My opinion is that, based upon the evidence presented, when stripped of emotionally charged baggage and just looked at for what it is, that on the balance of probabilities they aren't involved. I could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure if there was evidence that was sufficient to convince the police of their guilt but not sufficient to bring charges, the UK would not be pumping money into an investigation following up other potential leads. That, while not evidential to the case directly, is an indication that the people who have access to the actual information and evidence do not agree with those who don't and are convinced beyond any doubt of their guilt. When the police believe they know who is guilty, but also recognize they cannot bring charges, they stop looking for other people (as the Portugese Police did - they believed the McCann's to be guilty, but their belief was based upon a near impossible explanation involving a freezer and so forth, and a story that the lead investigator had used before to get a false confession in a similar case - hence I tend not to put much stock in that).

The press reported on various findings in apartment 5A that were just not true, which is why the McCann's won a lawsuit against the press. It's also what makes it really unwise to draw a conclusion from what is reported in the press - almost all of it is practically fabricated. Unfortunately, the misrepresentation that went on in the press at the time (again, they won a lawsuit against the press for that - it's not my opinion, it was the legal outcome of a court case - the press grossly misrepresented the facts against the McCann's) continues to have an impact on people's views to this day. It also means, going back and reading the "facts" from the news is almost pointless because it is known that the press presentation is a misrepresentation of fact.

That's why, in many respects, my opinion is, to be frank, largely based upon the behaviour of those who actually have access to the actual evidence and information available, and that is the police themselves. The fact they are willing to continue to pursue lines of investigation that are not directed at the McCann's themselves is a clear indication that the actual evidence, the actual facts, do not point them at the McCann's. That is really why it looks to me that the McCann's are probably not involved.

Much of my argument about things like the dog's and such is really trying to just point out that the press reports are no where near as solid as the press made them out to be. We know the press reports are all but bogus, yet people still research this case by consulting the information reported in the press, and it's so coloured their views that they can't separate out their emotional responses to the characters as portrayed by the press and see any call for an objective evaluation of things as some version of having sympathy for the devil. I only am concerned that the guilty party be found and brought to justice, but to do so that requires that care is taken not to railroad an innocent party. If the McCann's are guilty, then an objective evaulation of the evidence, which we don't have access to but the police do, will lead the police to that conclusion. And if the McCann's are not guilty, then someone else is, and the police will follow that line of investigation. They appear to be doing the latter, and since I know I only have access to false, or at best highly mis-represented information, I'm trying to see if anything can be salvaged by being aware of where that misripesentation can occur. And the dog evidence is one because alerting is not evidence if it is not backed up by something else.

- Jeff

Jeff, at the end of the day I try to keep an open mind on the case as well. I see the evidence as presented. But the fact of the matter is people and the parents themselves on their side have tried dismissing the dogs evidence as irrelevant and a bit of a sideshow.
These dogs have been used, and been successful in other cases ,even after the Mcanns case, look them up. If the police thought they where dodgy why use them again? as they have been in at least two other high profile cases. You say people are regurgitating old false newspaper reports, but you yourself are just going off a highlights youtube video regarding the dogs.
Look at Martin Grimes full report, he knows the dogs, he knows when they initially sense something, their signs etc.
In the Mcanns apartment the dogs where directed to the bed, nothing. Now if I wanted to fit someone up with an overdose theory and a false alert that's where I would do it, not behind a sofa. And regarding the cars, the handler would have looked a right fool if he picked out the wrong car to get the dogs to give a false alert to. He didn't know which one was which, simple as.
Nowhere does Martin Grimes accuse the Mcanns, nowhere. He just reports what the dogs have spotted or not. If their is an innocent explanation for the dogs evidence fair enough but we shouldn't just completely dismiss it either because we don't like it as the Mcanns and their friends have seemed to do.
Regards Darryl

[Harry D]

Are people also forgetting that the sniffer dogs were alerted to cadaver scent on Cuddle Cat three months after Maddie disappeared?

From Goncalo Amaral's book The Truth Of The Lie:

[Sunny Delight]

So just been going through the Smith family witness statements again and took some key points from each:

Martin Smith:

- Left Kellys bar at 9:55pm.
- After leaving they enter a few diffrent streets walking home but see no one.
- As they reach the top of steps parallel to Rua 1 de Maio they see a man carrying a child.
- Smith thinks he was walking normally.
- He was walking the downward path in the opposite direction to the witness.
- He was 34-35, short hair, no glasses and clean shaven.
- Girl was aged around 4. She had blonde medium length hair.
- Light skin- white
- She was not covered by a blanket.
- Can't recall if barefoot but others in the party told him she was.

Peter Smith:

- Left Kellys at between 9:50pm and 10pm.
- They took a route through a few streets.
- As they reached the top of steps he sees a man carrying a child.
- Lighting was bad
- Individual was walking normally although somewhat quickly.
- He appeared normal.
- The individual was walking down the street in an opposite direction to the Smiths.
- He walked in the middle of the street as traffic was non existent.
- He was 35 or older, slightly brown skin, short brown hair.
- The girl was 2-3 years old
- Blonde hair of medium tone
- Skin was white.
- She was in a deep sleep.

Aoife Smith:

-Left Kellys at approx 10pm.
- They walked in a spaced out manner through a few side steets.
-On reaching the top of the steps she sees a man carrying a child.
- Lighting was tenuous.
- Man was aged between 20 and 30. Clean shaven. Thick brown hair short at the back and longer on top.
- Wearing beige trousers though she couldn't see the top. Her nephew aged 12 told Irish Police it was a black jacket.
- He walked normally.
- The girl was aged around 4.
- She had fair hair of a medium shoulder length
- There was no blanket covering her.
-She was wearing white or light pink trousers
-She also had a light coloured top with long sleeves. Witness could not tell if it was same colour as the bottoms. The fabric was the same as the top.
- She did not remember if she had shoes on.


So make of it what you will.

[Harry D]

So just been going through the Smith family witness statements again and took some key points from each:

Martin Smith:

- Left Kellys bar at 9:55pm.
- After leaving they enter a few diffrent streets walking home but see no one.
- As they reach the top of steps parallel to Rua 1 de Maio they see a man carrying a child.
- Smith thinks he was walking normally.
- He was walking the downward path in the opposite direction to the witness.
- He was 34-35, short hair, no glasses and clean shaven.
- Girl was aged around 4. She had blonde medium length hair.
- Light skin- white
- She was not covered by a blanket.
- Can't recall if barefoot but others in the party told him she was.

Peter Smith:

- Left Kellys at between 9:50pm and 10pm.
- They took a route through a few streets.
- As they reached the top of steps he sees a man carrying a child.
- Lighting was bad
- Individual was walking normally although somewhat quickly.
- He appeared normal.
- The individual was walking down the street in an opposite direction to the Smiths.
- He walked in the middle of the street as traffic was non existent.
- He was 35 or older, slightly brown skin, short brown hair.
- The girl was 2-3 years old
- Blonde hair of medium tone
- Skin was white.
- She was in a deep sleep.

Aoife Smith:

-Left Kellys at approx 10pm.
- They walked in a spaced out manner through a few side steets.
-On reaching the top of the steps she sees a man carrying a child.
- Lighting was tenuous.
- Man was aged between 20 and 30. Clean shaven. Thick brown hair short at the back and longer on top.
- Wearing beige trousers though she couldn't see the top. Her nephew aged 12 told Irish Police it was a black jacket.
- He walked normally.
- The girl was aged around 4.
- She had fair hair of a medium shoulder length
- There was no blanket covering her.
-She was wearing white or light pink trousers
-She also had a light coloured top with long sleeves. Witness could not tell if it was same colour as the bottoms. The fabric was the same as the top.
- She did not remember if she had shoes on.


So make of it what you will.

Gerry McCann?

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-smiths-sighting.html

[Sunny Delight]

Gerry McCann?

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/...-sighting.html

How? He was seated at the Tapas bar at that time. Verified by a multitude of witnesses.

[Abby Normal]

Gerry McCann?

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/...-sighting.html

Probably.
smiths could have been off on there times or more likely the tapas seven were as they were pissed drunk. Nome of them had any of the times right on anything anyway.

[JeffHamm]

Are people also forgetting that the sniffer dogs were alerted to cadaver scent on Cuddle Cat three months after Maddie disappeared?

From Goncalo Amaral's book The Truth Of The Lie:

You mean the book that was barred from being further published because it was proven to be inaccurate by a court of law?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial

[Harry D]

You mean the book that was barred from being further published because it was proven to be inaccurate by a court of law?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial

It was proven to be libellous, you mean? That's not quite the same thing.

[Harry D]

How? He was seated at the Tapas bar at that time. Verified by a multitude of witnesses.

We don't know that. The timings are fuzzy.

Although, I doubt it was him, because if the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, I suspect it happened before the 3rd May 2007. I can't imagine that the McCanns were able to construct the abduction narrative with their Tapas friends on the spot like that. This had to have been planned ahead of time.

[Abby Normal]

The misinformation continues. It was only banned in england ——because of BS polics and cowardly lawyers who are afraid of the mccans and there litiginous nature.

and of course left out that the mccans lost there libel suit against the author and have to pay him thousands in damages.