How did the McCanns dispose of the body - how did they do it ?

[brit1981]

I think they stayed in a normal house and hired a normal car. Not exactly luxury.

But still not one person has come up with an actual theory as to how they did it, not one. How on the evening the alert was raised did they hide a body in daylight, in an hour, on foot somewhere that the police, staff, guests local, sniffer dogs etc did not find and what is more how did no-one see anything. They would had to have walked through the busy village in broad daylight with a bag big enough to hold her body in it, then hide it somewhere without anyone seeing. Then when they did retrieve it they had to do so when surrounded by police, staff, friends, media etc? Not one theory as to how they did that, let alone one based on any evidence.
And so what if they had keys to the church, I still think someone might have noticed a body in the church kitchen. So unless the priest, and whoever else used the kitchen (if there even was one) were suddenly "in on it" then I do not see what that is evidence of.

The McCanns were surrounded by staff and other guests inc. their friends as well as there being some police around in the hours after the alarm was raised, and after that surrounded by tens of people inc. FLO's who stated they behaved normally.

Also not one person has said they hired a boat from them, not one witness has said they saw them near a boat.

So once again how did the mccanns realise madeleine had died, decide to stage an abduction, then in an hour hide her body in broad daylight in a publicly accessible place on foot where no-one, even those who knew the place much better, found it, and then whilst surrounded by the worlds media, the police, the flo's, consular staff, MW staff, friends, family etc they retrieved her body unnoticed, hid it somewhere else unnoticed, retrieved it again, drove away to a port somewhere unnoticed, hired a deep sea boat unnoticed, and then dumped her body so far out it never washed to shore.

I really think the idea that one or two people watched the flat, then on the night of the abduction stayed in the dark perhaps near the patio then after they saw gerry leave they walked in the unlocked patio doors, picked madeleine up and walked out again (maybe they opened the window to pass madeleine to someone else, or as a possible escape route if needed etc) into the dark car park area then either walked to their home, boat or car with her. Unless that person popped up on the police radar there would be no reason to suspect them or to look in their property, check their alibi etc.

The idea that madeleine died in such circumstances that her parents decided to cover it up and dump her, and their friends, their friend's friends, and their friend's friend's mother decided to help them cover it up straight away, and they moved around a body as described above with not a witness or shred of evidence is just not credible.

 

[brit1981]

my replies in bold

It's mysterious to me too.

I can only go on what I've learnt about the case.

The only reason the moving and removing of the body has become part of my theory is the cadaver dogs and the Renault. I agree it seems outlandish...but the forensics are there.
No the forensics are not there. The forensic report stated that the material the dog alerted to was from gerry mccann and was on the card fobb. The dog did not alert anywhere in the car. The other material found was a mixed sample from three to five people that had the components shared by the mccann family including madeleine. There was no reason to suggest the material came from madeleine not her family members. If one took a brand new car gave it to the mccanns, and then forensicly tested it a few weeks later there would be samples found which also had madeleines components in them. Plus madeleines belongings had been in the car and those belongings woudl have had her DNA on them.
AS for the dog well a) eddie never alerted in the car, just to the card fobb and gerry mccann has not been declared dead on this evidence yet. And eddie was tained to alert to bodily fluids inc. blood, did not have a great track record of success (then there was the jersey and prout fiascos), and someone had admitted to bleeding for nearly an hour in the flat so there is no way to know if that was what he was alerting to
:banghead:

None of it makes sense, or should I say, none of it makes sense unless you put yourselves in their shoes. They were desperate to hide what had happened, and that meant hiding their daughter, and they had the means, the possible motive, and most definitely the opportunity.

What means, what opportunity, what motive? So far you have suggested she was kept in the church kitchen with no-one noticing, and that they hired a boat, but there is not a shred of evidence of this and it does rather implicate a priest and the church helpers who used the kitchen (of there even was one). Can you really explain how they physically moved a body in these circumstances.

They also had CREDIBILITY and nerve and intelligence.

A heart surgeon must have nerves of steel to cut into a living human heart daily.

What has that got to do with anything, Gerry is DR Gerry McCann a cardiologist, he is not a cardiac surgeon. They are two different things, if he was a surgeon he would be addressed as Mr in the UK, not Dr.

Even now, on this board, there is emotive resistance in some to believe the McCann capable. This has carried them a long way.

Yet not one anti-mccann has demonstrated they are capable?

I agree none of it seems likely, but ask yourself -

How likely is it that on the one and only night the McCann decided to check their children, one of said children vanished, coincidentally at the exact same time her father was "checking".

ER, according to witness statements they checked their children every night. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim they did not?
And if someone watched the flat, saw the patten of checking then it is more likely the person would take her just after the most recent check as they new they had a half hour window before the alarm was raised.

Not only did she vanish, she was allegedly carried away in front of three people's eyes (two of whom inexplicably saw nothing) by an "abductor" who was on foot, and later walked past another party who are 80% positive he was Gerry McCann.

Incorrect. Gerry and Jeremy were not looking in that direction. Jane was, but she did not identify madeleine. However her description matched very closley that of the smiths. At no point did the smiths say it was gerry. At the time they all said as it was dark they could not see the man, or his face, or identify him. Some weeks later one of them said that although it was dark, and he could not see the mans face somethign about the way he held the child made him think it could be Gerry by 60% (so a little over chance), but in no way certain. The other adults said they did nto recognize the man as Gerry. What is more severla other witnesses such as MW staff state they were with or saw gerry on the complex at this time. So in fact the smith sighting doe snot implicate gerry, it supports the abduction theory.

ullhair:

So what it boils down to are these, the inconvenient facts - the ones I personally just cannot get past. How likely is this scenario? I say it's so unlikely as to be impossible.

Gerry McCann was at the foot of his own apartment when his daughter was "abducted" from that apartment

At the time of the sighting he was further down the road, this was one of the first times he had stopped to talk there, there was no way he or an abductor could have known jeremy woudl be there, and an abductor woudl have thought he would be back at the resturant by then.

The abductor walked straight past Tanner with Madeleine

Tanner claims not to have recognised Madeleine at the time

She did not see her face, or know what pyjamas she was wearing. Why woudl she assume a man carrying a child in an area where people carried children back from a creche was an abductor taking her friends child.

Tanner walked straight past Gerry McCann and Jes Wilkins

Gerry McCann did not see Tanner nor the abductor

Why would he see the abductor when he was further down the road and not looking inthat direction. If Jane is lying why would they do it so that gerry contradicted her?
Why woudl he see tanner it was dark where they were, and he was in conversation.

Jes Wilkins did not see Tanner nor the abductor

Why would he see the abductor when he was further down the road and not looking in that direction.
Why woudl he see tanner it was dark where they were, and he was in conversation. Also either he or gerry had their backs to her. Interestingly Gerry disagrees with jane about the side of the road they were stood on, but jeremy agrees with her.

So if Jane is lying where did she go when she left the table, why does her version tally with jeremy's more than gerry, and why lie about that particular time, why not say she saw the abductor when they were not there? So far no-one has been able to answer this?

The Smith Family saw the abductor and were 80% certain it was Gerry McCann

Incorrect. The smith family said at the time they could not see the mans face, and that it was dark. Later one of them said that although it was dark, they did not have their glasses, by the body language they thought they could be 60%, just over chance, it may have been Gerry. BUt the remainder of the smith family did not support this, and independent witnesses such as MW staff put Gerry at the complex. Even the PJ dismissed the possibility it coudl be gerry.

Who claimed to be at the base of his apartment when his daughter was carried out the back door/window a few feet away.

This same abductor, who apparently didn't even have a car nearby, managed to spirit a little girl away in front of the eyes, literally, of those charged to care for her on the ONLY night they bothered "checking".

A) they checked every night according to witness statements.
B) no one has any idea if there was a car nearby or not. IF the man tanner and the smiths saw was the abductor then it is possible that he did not have a car or at least nearby, but we do not know for certain if the sighting was of the same person, if the person did not have a car/home/boat nearby
He left zero forensic evidence.
Given that the flat was a holiday let we have no idea what he left. Unidentified fingerprints were found on the sill however.

He was described as an exact physical match for Gerry McCann.

No he was not - and are you saying Jane was trying to set Gerry up. Besides Gerry is a white man of average build, average height, and dark ahired not exactly an unusual description.

He has never, ever repeated his crime, either before or since.

No-one has any idea though do they. The EU is borderless in many ways, with not even a passport needed to cross the border for most of it. No-one has any idea whether the abductor has done it before, if they have a criminal record, if they have done it since etc. They may have been in prison for child abuse, they may have a record for robbery. We do not even know the motive when it comes down to it so we have no idea if they have done anything like this before or since. But if madeleine was taken and murdered then not all child killers are seriel killers.

Forensic evidence indicates he was carrying a deceased Madeleine, surely a bit of a FAIL for a pedophile/human trafficker, and a fact which removes an abduction motive completely.

No forensic evidence has supported the idea that madeleine had died.

Means, motive, opportunity.

Who had them? There is only one logical answer, however unpalatable.

My opinion only.

Yet not one person has come up with the opportunity or means for the mccanns to have done it. And there was plenty of opportunity for hundreds of other unknowns to have done it. Nor has anyone come up with any evidence of a motive for the mccanns.
:cow:

 

[Clutchbag]

my replies in bold

Please provide a link that asserts the blood on the key fob BELONGED to gerry mccann as opposed to certain components matched His dna JUST as certaincomponents matched to madeleine in the sample from the blood under the tiles inthe flat as well as samples takenfrom theboot of thecar where keela found blood, that said exactly the same, ie certain components matched but everyone is saying there is no proof it was hers but said people are saying certain components mean it was gerrys blood

also thefact of the matter IS that the forensic science services did NOT exclude madeleine mccann as the donor of the blood found in the boot of the car

 

[SapphireSteel]

The overwhelming issue that cannot be explained is that the cadaver scen was found AT ALL, alone on the McCanns belongings.

This is a large resort, over the years several people must have died in it, yet only one apartment alerted.

Only one car.

Only one key fob.

Only one person's clothing.

No one can claim the DNA located at these spots ruled out Madeleine.

This clearly indicates it was Madeleine's cadaverine found on her parent's belongings.

HOW did it get there??????? There is simply NO explanation other than the obvious. They handled her dead body.

:banghead:

 

[Clutchbag]

The overwhelming issue that cannot be explained is that the cadaver scen was found AT ALL, alone on the McCanns belongings.

This is a large resort, over the years several people must have died in it, yet only one apartment alerted.

Only one car.

Only one key fob.

Only one person's clothing.

No one can claim the DNA located at these spots ruled out Madeleine.

This clearly indicates it was Madeleine's cadaverine found on her parent's belongings.

HOW did it get there??????? There is simply NO explanation other than the obvious. They handled her dead body.

:banghead:

Yes its suspicious indeed

The dogs were taken to all the tapas apartments to 10 cars, to murats villa, to roads,beaches and abandoned buikdings and elsewhere in Praia da luz but thecadaver dog alerted ONLY at flat mccann villa and car

 

[SapphireSteel]

Yes its suspicious indeed

The dogs were taken to all the tapas apartments to 10 cars, to murats villa, to roads,beaches and abandoned buikdings and elsewhere in Praia da luz but thecadaver dog alerted ONLY at flat mccann villa and car

Can any McCann supporters explain this? Apart from bashing the dogs and saying they are "rubbish" that is...we know that is not true.

TIA

 

[brit1981]

Well unless someone has the history of every single place they searched it is impossible to say why they did not alert. But certainly with the car, the mccanns was the only one where the dog was repeatedly called over to it despite ignoring it several times.
But in the prout case eddie only alerted in the house, not on the spot where the body was found so I am not sure his alerts or lack of alerts can be relied on that much.

 

[fabgod]

Well unless someone has the history of every single place they searched it is impossible to say why they did not alert. But certainly with the car, the mccanns was the only one where the dog was repeatedly called over to it despite ignoring it several times.
But in the prout case eddie only alerted in the house, not on the spot where the body was found so I am not sure his alerts or lack of alerts can be relied on that much.

Why would anyone have to have the history of every single place where they searched?
The fact is, the dogs only alerted to the locations where the McCanns were involved - therefore it doesn't matter at all if the dogs didnt alert to other locations as there was nothing there.
The only places of interest were where the McCanns ahd been or where items of theres were, that is more than coincidence.

You keep mentioning the Prout case and state

eddie only alerted in the house

Is that not enought? lol!!!
The Cadaver dog only alerted in the farmhouse where Kate Prout lived yet that is a failure?

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...h-Prout-home/story-11860269-detail/story.html

Ever thought maybe the reason that the Husband was finally caught was possibly because the Cadaver dog alerted in the house and gave the Police a lead to persue?

Interestingly there is no mention of Eugene Zapata anymore in defence of the McCanns?

 

[brit1981]

Why would anyone have to have the history of every single place where they searched?
The fact is, the dogs only alerted to the locations where the McCanns were involved - therefore it doesn't matter at all if the dogs didnt alert to other locations as there was nothing there.
The only places of interest were where the McCanns ahd been or where items of theres were, that is more than coincidence.

You keep mentioning the Prout case and state

Is that not enought? lol!!!
The Cadaver dog only alerted in the farmhouse where Kate Prout lived yet that is a failure?



http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...h-Prout-home/story-11860269-detail/story.html

Ever thought maybe the reason that the Husband was finally caught was possibly because the Cadaver dog alerted in the house and gave the Police a lead to persue?

Interestingly there is no mention of Eugene Zapata anymore in defence of the McCanns?

Considering the dog alerted in the house where there wa so body, and failed to alert when he was taken to the burial ground, I woudl consider that a massive fail. It does not say much for his abilities that he barks when his handler takes him into the house where the police are claiming she was killed, but fails to alert when taken over a bit of random ground where she was actually buried and where the police had no idea whether she was there or not. Finding a body might have been a better indication of whether he was good at finding bodies. I also think in the prout case the fact she disappeared whilst having a nasty dispute with her partner, and left everything behind might have been more of a clue as to her fate and who was resposnible. Even if the dog alert had been proof she was dead in the house it was no indication of who killed her. But her body was not found until the killer pin pointed it, when the dog had gone over this area he had ignored it.
But that is the problem, eddie has appeared in the red tops before the jersey fiasco, but not one LE has actually said he is a top dog. He only found one body in his time at SYP, and if we are to believe the media reports the humans there could smell the body. He was not even the top dog in his two dog team. Where he is different is that his handler went independent unusually for the UK and was charging the PJ E1000 per day so needed publicity.

But it is important to find the histories of all the places the dog alerted to because we need to know what he was alerting to. His handler claimed he alerts to dried blood from a living human, so whilst we know that someone bled for 45 mins and walked aroudn the flat tryign to stem the blood according to his statement, we have no idea if anyone bled in the other flats. If they did not then it is not surprising the dog did not alert in thise flats. We also saw in the shannon mathews case that the false alerts were blamed on second hand furniture, so we need to know where all the furniture in the flats inc. 5A came from.

But we also need to know what the handler was told when he did the searches. had they made him aware they were trying to get evidence against the mccanns, was he aware the villa and 5a belonged to the mccanns, we know when he did the car search he ignored all the plain cars and chose the only one covered in find madeleine posters to repeatedly call the dog back, we know that the dog did nto alert in the villa until he was repeatedly called back to the dining area, and then although he never alerted to anythign in particular his alert was pinned on the soft toy despite him ignoring it previously and despite the fact the toy was not even shown to be in the cupboard in the video. These are all questions that need to be answered in a trial, to ascertain if the search had been loaded.

But the dog can alert all they want, it does not mean we are arresting people for murde rin jersey care home scandal does it. And that is the crux beleiveing the dogs only alert to bodies and not bodily fluids and blood form aliving human, and are evidence in themselves means not just going against grime, but going down the conspiracy route and believing child murder was covered up in jersey. We also have to look at the entire situation. If the mccanns did it they had to get rid of the body between five thirty and ten that evening, how did they do it because it is impossible for them to have done it.

 

[fabgod]

Considering the dog alerted in the house where there wa so body, and failed to alert when he was taken to the burial ground, I woudl consider that a massive fail. It does not say much for his abilities that he barks when his handler takes him into the house where the police are claiming she was killed, but fails to alert when taken over a bit of random ground where she was actually buried and where the police had no idea whether she was there or not. Finding a body might have been a better indication of whether he was good at finding bodies. I also think in the prout case the fact she disappeared whilst having a nasty dispute with her partner, and left everything behind might have been more of a clue as to her fate and who was resposnible. Even if the dog alert had been proof she was dead in the house it was no indication of who killed her. But her body was not found until the killer pin pointed it, when the dog had gone over this area he had ignored it.
But that is the problem, eddie has appeared in the red tops before the jersey fiasco, but not one LE has actually said he is a top dog. He only found one body in his time at SYP, and if we are to believe the media reports the humans there could smell the body. He was not even the top dog in his two dog team. Where he is different is that his handler went independent unusually for the UK and was charging the PJ E1000 per day so needed publicity.

But it is important to find the histories of all the places the dog alerted to because we need to know what he was alerting to. His handler claimed he alerts to dried blood from a living human, so whilst we know that someone bled for 45 mins and walked aroudn the flat tryign to stem the blood according to his statement, we have no idea if anyone bled in the other flats. If they did not then it is not surprising the dog did not alert in thise flats. We also saw in the shannon mathews case that the false alerts were blamed on second hand furniture, so we need to know where all the furniture in the flats inc. 5A came from.

But we also need to know what the handler was told when he did the searches. had they made him aware they were trying to get evidence against the mccanns, was he aware the villa and 5a belonged to the mccanns, we know when he did the car search he ignored all the plain cars and chose the only one covered in find madeleine posters to repeatedly call the dog back, we know that the dog did nto alert in the villa until he was repeatedly called back to the dining area, and then although he never alerted to anythign in particular his alert was pinned on the soft toy despite him ignoring it previously and despite the fact the toy was not even shown to be in the cupboard in the video. These are all questions that need to be answered in a trial, to ascertain if the search had been loaded.

But the dog can alert all they want, it does not mean we are arresting people for murde rin jersey care home scandal does it. And that is the crux beleiveing the dogs only alert to bodies and not bodily fluids and blood form aliving human, and are evidence in themselves means not just going against grime, but going down the conspiracy route and believing child murder was covered up in jersey. We also have to look at the entire situation. If the mccanns did it they had to get rid of the body between five thirty and ten that evening, how did they do it because it is impossible for them to have done it.

Some very bold comments made in the above post.
So rather than debating your claims, please post factual evidence of the Cadaver dog failing to alert when taken over Kate Prouts burial site as you have stated.

Secondly, I suggest you check your claim that no human remains were found at Haut De la Garenne and post the evidence, because as far as I am aware, Human remains were in fact found there.

A cadaver dog does not have a job description to find a body, the dog is intended to be used in the search for dead bodies as a tool to assist Law Enforcement Agencies in the hunt for a missing person or indeed a murder case, where traditional methods have come up short in finding answers.

Such a case was the Kate Prout murder, where she was missing and there was no sign of what had happened to her. In this case the Cadaver dog alerted at the home,which confirmed Detectives suspicions and helped to direct the case toward the husband
To call that a massive fail pretty much sums up the thinking as far as I am concerned.

To state that

Even if the dog alert had been proof she was dead in the house it was no indication of who killed her.

Brit1981
strange comment? how is a cadaver dog expected to give an indication of who killed her?
I dont know of many animals that would be able to do that to be honest lol!

Can you also post factual evidence of the statistics you have claimed regarding Eddie the Cadaver dog only ever having found one body?

It seems there are a lot of opinions being touted as fact in this post, there are guidelines from Websleuths that posters should back up such claims with factual links, so please feel free to do so, if you cannot, maybe you should state that these claims are simply your opinion

 

[brit1981]

Prout case in regards to dog searches

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2310628.ece

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/2...adrian-prout-finally-gives-grave-murdered.htm

It is also worth mentioning that the idea that eddie's alert in the house was not any sort of smoking gun. It was only really mentioned after the trial in a documentary, not covered gretaly in the trial itself. It was more the fact that Kate was known to have a rocky relationship with her husband, was demanding an extra 200K in the settlement the same day she was last seen, did not use any of her bank cards, personal documents after she was last senn, her husband did not report her missing for five days and only then at the insistance of other relatives, and he had a pipelaying business with access to acres of land, that raised concerns.
If the police had relied on the alerts in court it would probably have backfired, because they would have then had the issue that the body was not found on the land which meant it was less likely Prout killed her (as he would have more thna likely buried her on the land) and raised reasonable doubt.

jersey case

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDoc...mentHomeAffairsMinisterHCAE 20100714 ILeM.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/06/jersey-childrens-home-scandal-ends

SYP FOI - please note that this is not directly from the SYP website as the FOI is now too old so was removed from their site. However I did see it there back at the time. If you wish to clarify the FOI , all one has to do is email SYP with the FOI request and after 40 days it will be abck on their site for a time.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078056/Rebuttal of "Fact" 32

As two teams working together: handler Ellis and dog Frankie, with handler Grime and dog Eddie have been deployed on twenty occasions, with the recovery of four bodies.

Working alone, Grime/Eddie have been deployed on seventeen occasions with the recovery of one body and Ellis/Frankie have been deployed on five occasions with the recovery of three bodies, this includes the recovery of two women in one grave.


The thing about the dogs is that in actual fact trying to sue them as evidenc eon their own make sit more difficult for the prosecution. As I said above in the prout case relying on the alerts in one place raises the question of why they did not alert in other places since we cannot have it that the dog alerst mean 100% a body was ther ein one place, but in others they are inncaurate.
So in the McCann case relying on the dog alerts as any sort of evidence the mccanns are guilty means
1) having to convince the dog is always accurate
2) having to convince that an alert always indicates a body, not degrading bodily fluids from living people as Grime reported
3) having to convince the alert was about madeleine's body
4) having to convince the alert indicates who put madeleines body there
5) having to convince that the body only touched two spots in the flat, some t-shirts, and a card fobb.
6) having to convince that whilst being surrounded by hundreds of media, journalists, rubber neckers, friends, family, flo's, mw staff, consular staff, police etc the mccanns went to the body and transfered the scent from the body only onto the card fobb and nothing else in the car and no-one witnessed them doing this. This also means accepting the scent can appear hrough transfer not just having the body there, so undermines the other alerts.
7) having to convince
that the jersey case is a cover-up rather than the dog falsly alerting, or aleting to bodily fluids on tissues.

This is why the dogs are not evidence on their own, and are used to recover victims not to save forensics and police a job. They cannot tell us why the scent was there, who put it there, where or who it came from, or what it originated from, body, blood, bodily fluids etc and as such they are not evidence against a person. You yourself admitted that the evrd could not tell you who killed a person, and therefore by implication it is impossible for the dogs to be evidence against a person.

There is also the fact that Keela the blood dog, failed to alert on one search she did in the flat, but on her second search days later she alerted at a place she had previously ignored.

 

[fabgod]

Prout case in regards to dog searches

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2310628.ece

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/2...adrian-prout-finally-gives-grave-murdered.htm

It is also worth mentioning that the idea that eddie's alert in the house was not any sort of smoking gun. It was only really mentioned after the trial in a documentary, not covered gretaly in the trial itself. It was more the fact that Kate was known to have a rocky relationship with her husband, was demanding an extra 200K in the settlement the same day she was last seen, did not use any of her bank cards, personal documents after she was last senn, her husband did not report her missing for five days and only then at the insistance of other relatives, and he had a pipelaying business with access to acres of land, that raised concerns.
If the police had relied on the alerts in court it would probably have backfired, because they would have then had the issue that the body was not found on the land which meant it was less likely Prout killed her (as he would have more thna likely buried her on the land) and raised reasonable doubt.

You are kidding me?
You are quoting in your often used words "a red top" newspaper as your evidence?

Your two links in the Kate Prout show nothing at all that the dog searches missed the spot where Kate Prout was eventually found therefore your claims are completely without basis and as often, are simply your opinion, yet are quoted as fact.
the nearest that either of your links get to confirming your statements is

Prout, who told police officers that his wife had left him, is believed to have used heavy machinery to bury his wife so deep in the ground that sniffer dogs were unable to find anything

.

The same article also goes on to say that at the time the article was written, the body was not even located

He has agreed to visit the farm to point out the exact location.

Please treat other posters who are interested in this case with some respect by not purporting your beliefs as fact when they are clearly not, they are merely your opinions and are not stated as such, which is contrary to guidance offered on these threads by Websleuths Moderators and which the majority of us try to follow.

Again, I ask you to prove that the Cadaver dog was a massive fail in the Kate Prout case as you have claimed as fact.

 

[fabgod]

REgarding Brit1981s claims that no human remains were found in Jersey at the Haut de la Garenne home
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...mmy-Savile-He-was-the-tip-of-the-iceberg.html

The dig at the home was discredited, supposedly having found nothing, but even Harper’s critical successors in the investigation admit that at least three human bone fragments were found and children’s teeth, from between 10 and 65 children of all ages.

These have never been adequately explained, Harper says. “They were not from a long ago cemetery or all animal bones, but the bones proved impossible to date. One anthropologist said they were a couple of decades old, but another said they could not be dated. We’ll never know. They were definitely human and juvenile.”

The above quote is from 19th October 2012, The Jersey scandal is still exactly that, a scandal and very possibly a cover up as many have believed for a long time.
Brit1981 talks about conspiracy theories as though they are ridiculous and do not happen, yet in the past couple of months we have seen signs in the UK of massive consparacies being uncovered as in Hillsborough and the Jimmy Savile abuse case.
The Savile case links to the Jersey scandal which in turn leads to Martin Grimes and the continued attempts to discredit him and his dogs work on the Madeleine McCann case by some parties.

Personally, I think time will prove there to be a firm basis in the cadaver searches of Haut De la Garenne, but until then the debate will continue.

 

[brit1981]

You think there has been mass murder of children in a jersey care home, based on milk teeth (which according to some on here woudl nto alert a dog since they came from alliving person). The bone fragment story turne dout to be incorrect.

And I also put in the business newspaper for the prout case, but I thought the red top was appropriate as it seems that so many get their information about Grimes from them, as the normal papers do not seem to be interested in him. All the claims of "top dogs" come from the red tops.

And by saying until bodies are found in the care home, the debate will continue? If no bodies have been found surely that is proof too. How can it be that it is the case that until a person is proven right they will continue to claim there is a debate on going. There is no debate about the jersey car ehome aside form a few blogs online that claim to know the truth, but do nto seem to actually coem up with anything more concrete than it is all a cover-up. Right up their with those who think the american twin towers attacks were an inside job, Diana was murdered etc. No doubt people are claiming that until proof that diana was murdered turns up, the debate will continue for the simple reason that if they do not see the result they want they will just claim conspiracy. Personally I think it is sad that grown adults are so desperate for the mccanns to be guilty that they would rather there had been child murders in a care home than face the humiliation of being wrong.

Well as the "cadaver" dog was actually a victim recovery dog, and he failed to recover a victim, it is a massive fail. There was a victim there, he failed to recover her. Unless you have proof that eddie succeeded in recovering the victim.

But this is going off topic. The topic is how did they dispose of the body.
We know madeleine was alive and well at five thirty. We know by ten when several people inc. MW staff searched the flat she was not in the flat. It got dark at eight thorty, and this is when other guests lace the mccanns at the tapas bar. We know from witnesses they were only alone for a max of five minutes between then and ten. We also know gerry was at the tennis courts between six and seven thirty.

So how did they in this time frame dispose of the body. I believe it is impossible and therefore this means they are not guilty.

If we are to believe that eddie only alerts to a body how did weeks later the body come into contact with the mccanns car fobb, and nothing else, and how despite the hundreds of witnesses did no-one notice the mccanns retrieving a three month old corpse.

I am betting not one person convinced of the mccanns guilt on the basis of a dog barking, can come up with a credible theory that fits with the actual facts of the case.

 

[gord]

This has always been the crux of the case for me . I have never once seen a logical theory apart from delving into convulted theories about cover ups / doubles / etc etc . Until something crops up then it seems to be the view of the judicary and LE in both countries ( Amaral excepted ) - but suppose it doesnt mean that peoplem can have differing beliefs .

As far as the dogs and what they did or did not find - I keep on cominng back to what Grimes said -- you need corroborating evidence - which ddnt materialise - pluis look at the posibility of cross contamination that i hadnt really thought of much

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's 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".



Your Quote

But this is going off topic. The topic is how did they dispose of the body.
We know madeleine was alive and well at five thirty. We know by ten when several people inc. MW staff searched the flat she was not in the flat. It got dark at eight thorty, and this is when other guests lace the mccanns at the tapas bar. We know from witnesses they were only alone for a max of five minutes between then and ten. We also know gerry was at the tennis courts between six and seven thirty.

So how did they in this time frame dispose of the body. I believe it is impossible and therefore this means they are not guilty.

If we are to believe that eddie only alerts to a body how did weeks later the body come into contact with the mccanns car fobb, and nothing else, and how despite the hundreds of witnesses did no-one notice the mccanns retrieving a three month old corpse.

I am betting not one person convinced of the mccanns guilt on the basis of a dog barking, can come up with a credible theory that fits with the actual facts of the case.

 

[Tink]

I don't see how this time frame means they couldn't dispose of the body. You have an hour there between 7:30 and 8:30. Could not someone have just carried an (apparently) sleeping child down to the ocean and disposed of the body there? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

TP

 

[Clutchbag]

I don't see how this time frame means they couldn't dispose of the body. You have an hour there between 7:30 and 8:30. Could not someone have just carried an (apparently) sleeping child down to the ocean and disposed of the body there? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

TP

The window of opportunity was actually from the last independent sighting at 5.30 to 10pm or so, obviously if this happened

 

[Clutchbag]

i think there should be a law against quoting the SUN newspaper for any kind of so called facts

Its very sad to see some people would shrug off the abuse at Jersey care home in order to discredit the cadaver and blood dogs that worked in the mccann case, and their handlef, there is a word for that but it escapes me right now. it will come

LE has never had a problem or lack of results employing these dogs BEFORE Jersey and the mccann case or AFTER, only in those two cases, makes you wonder why, it really is not very hard at all to figure out.

perhaps the apologists can point out in which case Eddie alerted positively and the missingperson was found alive. Might take a while.

 

[KariKae]

From my days on the JonBenet board, I remember the scent of death was evident when John brought her up from the basement. If the McCanns had put her in a freezer or cooler with ice, would they have been able to stall the scent of death long enough?

 

[gord]

No-one is apologising for the care home abuse - that is a tad insulting and does nothing to prosper any sort if normal discussion

what people say is that there is no evidence of anyone being killed at the home or a lot of bodies being found- which was the lurid headlines at the time .

Can you give me a list of how many bodies were retrieved frim the site after the investigation. ?

i think there should be a law against quoting the SUN newspaper for any kind of so called facts

Its very sad to see some people would shrug off the abuse at Jersey care home in order to discredit the cadaver and blood dogs that worked in the mccann case, and their handlef, there is a word for that but it escapes me right now. it will come

LE has never had a problem or lack of results employing these dogs BEFORE Jersey and the mccann case or AFTER, only in those two cases, makes you wonder why, it really is not very hard at all to figure out.

perhaps the apologists can point out in which case Eddie alerted positively and the missingperson was found alive. Might take a while.