Mrs Marple
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2018
- Messages
- 1,410
- Reaction score
- 7,189
Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts to the above I posted this weekend?
Interesting l hadn't heard this before. I'm not surprised at all.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts to the above I posted this weekend?
Sorry, I quoted wrong poster!I don’t think they did. This investigation was a travesty.
Sorry I quoted your post by mistake!What bugs me the most - full lack of guilt, remorse, shame and feeling horrible from her parents. Why?? Anybody in their position would be ridden with huge non stopping guilt because one way or another they caused their daughter likely death/disappearance...Maybe it is because they know exactly what happened to her?
Hi. I’m also new to this case here. The sniff dogs bother me. They both hit on something in 5A. I am certain this has been discussed extensively on WS before. I’d like to hear theories on the dog hits.
Thank you!I think the dogs simply illustrate how police must follow the evidence in their investigation, as opposed to arguing about evidential standards at a trial that hasn't even happened.
The main use of dogs is to find more evidence, or to lead investigators to one theory over another. For instance you will see that one was used in the Helen Bailey case and the dog found signs of a corpse. But the police kept this knowledge secret. Instead they refocussed their main efforts on the house as the primary crime scene. The dog doesn't tell us how Helen died. But police now know to concentrate on finding out where her body is hidden and downgrade the theory she has gone away.
So in this case, looking at 5A the cadaver dog suggests to Mark Harrison and PJ to focus on theories where M died in the apartment as opposed to human trafficking or wandering off. This is key information that remains central to the working theories of the case. Especially it begins to confirm Harrison's own working theory, and means police can reduce focus on distractions (e.g. 100s of Maddie sightings around the world)
The blood dog helps in a similar way - it lead the investigators to forensic evidence which might have been cleaned up so humans could not find it - namely blood behind the sofa. Unfortunately examination of this trace evidence brought nothing further.
But you can how the two dogs taken together provide a valuable investigative lead, and led them to corroborating forensics.
Watching the documentary, it proves that it was literally impossible for Mccanes to hide a body after Maddie's disappearance. If they did it before ( early evening on May 3rd), it is plausible that they decided to stage everything and go to dinner with friends like nothing happened. Could they do that? It requires huge emotional strength do not show any pain. Some people ( like Chris Watts) had no problem looking normal and happy after the murder but the Mccanes are different story...So I am not sure. Documentary does not provide any proof when Maddie was seen last on May 3rd...
Noharg, no problem
Oh ok, I did not know about Kate's book. Before documentary I followed the case by watching all kind of videos on YT and my opinion was that parents were guilty or knew something. Documentary makes it all look like The Mccanes were never left alone and media and people were watching them pretty much 24/7 ( I guess its is not the case)...But it seems that doco proved that DNA evidents found in rental car was faulty ... It makes then look much less guilty.
My feeling that Maddie most likely is not alive because the girl with such a rare eye condition would be so hard to hide, somebody would definitely notice something at some point...
And I wish testing the twins would be done ( I doubt though the Mccanes would allow it)...
So in this case, looking at 5A the cadaver dog suggests to Mark Harrison and PJ to focus on theories where M died in the apartment as opposed to human trafficking or wandering off. This is key information that remains central to the working theories of the case.
I'm not sure about this title - 30 children missing in Portugal since Maddy!? I hope not! There should be a spotlight on every missing child, it's just sad that this is not the case
HuffPost is now part of Oath
I found this too -
Map showing distribution of Portugal's missing children.
which hopefully shows a map of an unfortunate 13 missing children in Portugal...
I'm not taking sides by posting this - I just hope the McCanns are innocent. I would be so horrified if they were not... i'm open to anything tho
And as I saw that, I was just in shock. Like how in the world did it actually seem reasonable to seven adults to leave their children alone and unsupervised with that kind of locational setup? It literally makes no sense to me.
Hi. I’m also new to this case here. The sniff dogs bother me. They both hit on something in 5A. I am certain this has been discussed extensively on WS before. I’d like to hear theories on the dog hits.
JMO
RSBM.
I mean, what should we infer based on the dogs' hits? That some time after 5:30 but before 8:00, Madeleine had an accident or was killed by Kate/Gerry inside of the apartment, with the other two little ones present? And then what, Gerry places her on the shelf in the closet while they get ready for dinner? And Kate gets out of the shower and says "No, Gerry, not in the closet, I don't want my new tennis outfits ruined!" Gerry: "my apologies love, where then?" Kate: "oh I don't know, just toss her behind the sofa for now! And bring me a glass of wine!". And then a short time later, Kate says "I'll read the twins a bedtime story while you dump Madeleine, do be careful not to get caught!" Gerry, on his way out the door, carrying a concealed Madeleine: "not to worry love, I'll make it so that she's never found. Cheers!"
I read this supposed dialogue in the actual voices of Kate and Gerry, and it just sounded so odd!
But I have to agree. The dogs were introduced about three months after the disappearance, and we're talking about a hotel room. Did the hotel keep it closed off for all that time? If not, what else happened in that room in between?
Or what about before? The documentary mentions dogs being able to sense human cadaverine from a 40-year-old grave, if I recall correctly. If there was cadaverine in the room, can we be sure it's Madeleine's and not someone else's who died there years prior? Can cadaverine be produced in three hours, from the last sighting until dinner time?
At the end, as you say, none of this led anywhere. But I suppose it's still good to get a glimpse of how things happened in sequence.