The Case, so far...

[colomom]

Strike 1: These people say their 3-year-old's favorite show is "Dr Who". This makes them either unfit parents, or liars.

Strike 2: Kate attributes cadaver scent on Cuddle Cat to her having taken it to work. This makes her either an unfit parent, or a liar.

Does anyone (colomom, maybe?) have a source for that Cuddle cat quote?

Searched my little fingers to the bone and this is as close as I could get. I will post more if I find something else....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2469329.ece

"Two British sniffer dogs, one capable of detecting blood and human remains, were taken to Portugal in early August to help in the investigation. The dog picked up a “scent of death” on numerous items, including Mrs McCann’s clothes and her daughter’s favourite soft toy.

During police interviews the McCanns, both 39, were repeatedly shown a video of the animal “going crazy” when it approached their hired Renault Scenic car.

Mrs McCann could not explain it, but the scent of bodies remains detectable to the springer spaniel “cadaver dogs” for years and her legal team concluded that the scent could have come from her contact with corpses during her work as a doctor."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2422967.ece

"Mrs McCann is reported to have explained that in her work as locum GP she came into contact with six corpses in the weeks leading up to Algarve holiday.
~snip~
The cadaver dog is alleged to have become excited when shown Madeleine’s favourite soft pink toy, called Cuddle Cat."

One more:

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=480660&in_page_id=1770

"Why did a dog detect the smell of a corpse on your clothes?

A British dog trained to find dead bodies is alleged to have smelled something on Mrs McCann's jeans and T- shirt, and also on Madeleine's toy Cuddle Cat. Mrs McCann is believed to have replied that she came into contact with at least six dead people in her work as a GP in the period leading up to the holiday. Could Cuddle Cat, which she always holds close to her, have been contaminated from her clothes?"

 

[Jdee]

To me that reads that Kate was around dead people at work and somehow carried the scent on her clothes so in turn Cuddle Cat (which she carried around with her AFTER Madeleine disapeared) transferred the scent off her onto the toy. I have seen posted by posters that Kate took Cuddle Cat to work with her. I don't believe this is true though. I think when Kate said CC got the scent from her being around dead bodies came after Madeleine vanished and she carried the toy around.

 

[Jayelles]

The website about the dogs said that they can detect the scent MONTHS after the blood has been deposited. So we could be talking about some pretty old bloodstains.

 

[AquaEyes]

Someone posted that perhaps the McCann's were "naive" in leaving three toddlers alone at night. I know most agree that leaving children alone is wrong. It is the labeling of the parents as "naive" that irks me.

A couple of definitions of the term "naive" are "unsophisticated" and "unstudied." Now, I believe (my opinion) that a teenage mother might be "unstudied" in her care of her children. But to consider that professional adults (aged 39!!!) are uneducated or unsophisticated in terms of the harm that could befall their children when left alone is absolutely wrong-headed.

It is physicians that are all too aware of the dangers that can happen to toddlers when left alone (playing with matches, lighters; getting into the medicine; falling, becoming sick at their stomachs in the night or running a high fever (especially little ones like that).

Again, it is not naivety at fault here. It is the act of putting self ahead of children, a practice that is all too common these days, when children are only decorations or possessions to be trotted out when the time is right and convenient.

 

[colomom]

Someone posted that perhaps the McCann's were "naive" in leaving three toddlers alone at night. I know most agree that leaving children alone is wrong. It is the labeling of the parents as "naive" that irks me.

A couple of definitions of the term "naive" are "unsophisticated" and "unstudied." Now, I believe (my opinion) that a teenage mother might be "unstudied" in her care of her children. But to consider that professional adults (aged 39!!!) are uneducated or unsophisticated in terms of the harm that could befall their children when left alone is absolutely wrong-headed.

It is physicians that are all too aware of the dangers that can happen to toddlers when left alone (playing with matches, lighters; getting into the medicine; falling, becoming sick at their stomachs in the night or running a high fever (especially little ones like that).

Again, it is not naivety at fault here. It is the act of putting self ahead of children, a practice that is all too common these days, when children are only decorations or possessions to be trotted out when the time is right and convenient.

I agree with you. When Kate said: "At worst we were naive." (see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/26/wmaddy26.xml) it was a real turning point for me. Their refusal to take responsibility for the part they played in Maddie's dissapearance has always been very telling to me. It has tainted my view of them in everything else they do or say.

 

[kelly london]

my only comment is:

IF i killed my daughter and hid her body in a foreign country, i would be on a plane out of there as soon as humanly possible.

 

[AquaEyes]

The police would expect you to leave the country immediately, too! And most people know that the police look at running as an admission of guilt. Thus, to truly cover yourself, you would stay put and "search" for your child.

 

[gord]

I agree with you. When Kate said: "At worst we were naive." (see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/26/wmaddy26.xml) it was a real turning point for me. Their refusal to take responsibility for the part they played in Maddie's dissapearance has always been very telling to me. It has tainted my view of them in everything else they do or say.

That is fair enough - to hold them responsible for that

A huge leap to then say they murdered / disposed and now are covering up in the biggest con ever

One does not lead to the other

 

[colomom]

That is fair enough - to hold them responsible for that

A huge leap to then say they murdered / disposed and now are covering up in the biggest con ever

One does not lead to the other

Gord,

I have seen a number of posts on this forum where posters have stated that they are suspicious of the parents due to the combination of many different actions, reactions and attitudes. No one has every stated that because of one specific thing have they determined that they think they "murdered/disposed and are now covering up in the biggest con ever".

It is quite apparent that you are determined to convince the forum members that they are wrong in their beliefs and or suspicions. I would think that the best way to do that would be to present a convincing, logical, intelligent argument. Anything less will not achieve the desired effect.

I can assure you that no one is going to change their minds because of a comment such as yours above. In my opinion, it is a insult to one's intelligence.

 

[gord]

Gord,

I have seen a number of posts on this forum where posters have stated that they are suspicious of the parents due to the combination of many different actions, reactions and attitudes. No one has every stated that because of one specific thing have they determined that they think they "murdered/disposed and are now covering up in the biggest con ever".

It is quite apparent that you are determined to convince the forum members that they are wrong in their beliefs and or suspicions. I would think that the best way to do that would be to present a convincing, logical, intelligent argument. Anything less will not achieve the desired effect.

I can assure you that no one is going to change their minds because of a comment such as yours above. In my opinion, it is a insult to one's intelligence.

colomom

beleive me I am trying to put logical arguments out there - I am trying to put my theorys and answer the many questions tah are posed to the best of what I belive in - as are you

I have many posters questions - some I get answers some I dont . I am just in this case trying to make sure that everyone diferentiates from a stupid naive decision to leave your kids alone - to then murder

at the moment the whole case is resting on DNA - ie the DNA found in the car - is it Maddys , is it post mortem - to me that is the whole crux of the case

I am sorry if I offend you by arguing these points

 

[daffodil]

That is fair enough - to hold them responsible for that

A huge leap to then say they murdered / disposed and now are covering up in the biggest con ever

One does not lead to the other

:clap: Completely agree.

 

[Texana]

One way or another, a decision by the McCanns led to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Either their decision to consistently not use a babysitter or the night time crech, allowing some unknown abductor to stalk and time and then take their child, or a decision to cover up an accidental death of that child, but either way, it was because of a decision on the McCanns' part that led to the disappearance.

Now, setting aside any DNA evidence since that has only been referred to by the McCanns' spokesmen, and not actually revealed in entirety by PJ or British authorities, then let us say this:

A couple that repeatedly put their own socializing interests ahead of the well being of the children (and forget Kate's comment that they were "naive" to not know about abductors, as doctors they most certainly had first hand experience during their medical training with injuries suffered by children, whether supervised or not) is a couple that could just as easily, to many people, put their family's interests ahead of one deceased children. Particularly when the child's accidental death might result in loss of livelihood and the break up of the entire family.

That's not a leap. That's a little step.

I'm willing to admit there's a small--IMO--statistical possibility that an unknown abductor stalked the McCanns for nights, entered the apartment at just the right time, drugged and subdued Madeleine in a 30 minute or less window of time, and climbed through a window carrying the unconscious child, all the while knowing that the outside passageway was clear of other people.

Why anyone is not willing to admit the same in reverse--that educated, professional parents who left three young children alone night after night, (while parking them in daycare during the day as well) might not be fully capable of covering up an accidental death (again, to keep custody of two innocent younger children) is hard for me to understand.

 

[Dr. Creepin]

The prosecutor handed a 4,000 page dossier of evidence to the judge. I'd call that a ream. What would pro-McCann's call it, a note?

 

[hcc2007]

I'm willing to admit there's a small--IMO--statistical possibility that an unknown abductor stalked the McCanns for nights, entered the apartment at just the right time, drugged and subdued Madeleine in a 30 minute or less window of time, and climbed through a window carrying the unconscious child, all the while knowing that the outside passageway was clear of other people.

Why anyone is not willing to admit the same in reverse--that educated, professional parents who left three young children alone night after night, (while parking them in daycare during the day as well) might not be fully capable of covering up an accidental death (again, to keep custody of two innocent younger children) is hard for me to understand.

Well put, Texana! Someone reported data here that shows stranger abduction to be incredibly rare compared to other causes of disappearance and death of children. Parents are way more often the cause. So on that basis alone, the McCann-involvement theory is more plausible than the stranger abduction one.

 

[Texana]

Well put, Texana! Someone reported data here that shows stranger abduction to be incredibly rare compared to other causes of disappearance and death of children. Parents are way more often the cause. So on that basis alone, the McCann-involvement theory is more plausible than the stranger abduction one.

Thanks, and exactly, given the statistical odds, it's again, not a leap.

 

[Dr. Creepin]

In the interest of justice and fairness, innocent until proven guilty and all that, I will consider for a moment that Madeleine was snatched to order by an elite paedophile ring, (an accident waiting to happen) and the parents are not guilty of anything other than gross stupidity. If this was the case there would be no evidence of abduction because it would be covered-up at the highest levels, to protect politicians and police. Potential witnesses can be intimidated, or worse. The McCann’s would be an easy target to implicate due to their hedonistic lifestyle. They were then manipulated by rich and powerful people. If spooks had access to the body they could plant forensic materials.

The trouble with this theory is it would require everyone from the PJ in Portugal to the FSS in Birmingham to collaborate. It would then be imperative for the British establishment and media to put the McCann’s firmly in the frame and make them hate figures. That would have been easy enough to do, the public already treat them with contempt (see Mirror Forums) when they have been painted as pure as the driven snow, imagine the vilification if their names had been dragged through the mud! But the reverse is true... the press publish ‘fairy stories’ to exonerate them. If they were to be stitched up, why did it take the CID so long to make them formal suspects?

Of course, none of this explains the McCann’s bizarre behaviour in the absence of their daughter. If you want one specific irregularity, consider the fact that neither of them has ever addressed their missing child directly through the media. Apparently the FBI treats this as an indication of the parent’s guilt. On one occasion, when prompted by a reporter, who asked what would you say to Madeleine if she was listening? Kate said, “Only that we love you, but she already knows that.” She didn’t look into the camera, choke-up, or break-down, in what should have been a gut-wrenching moment. As much as I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, their actions betray them.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

I agree, Dr. Creepin.

The trouble with the McCanns' speech and behavior is that it does not match that of parents whose little girl has been kidnapped. This couple is not acting or speaking like loving, bereaved, terrified parents.

OTOH, how on earth did they manage to hide their daughter's body and dispose of it?

For me, that is the sticking point. Unless this was planned beforehand, I just don't see how two strangers to the area could do that, even with help from their friends who are strangers to the area, too.

It is not difficult for me to believe a crime of opportunity occurred, which was perpetrated by a lone pedophile who later killed the child and disposed of her body. Certainly that has happened many times -- and they are not always caught. It doesn't have to be a pedophile ring or a genius who took the girl and effectuated a perfect crime. Certainly most criminals are not geniuses, and every unsolved crime can be characterized as being "perfect".

My reaction to this case is unusual for me: intellectually, I tend to think a lone pedophile took the child, while my "gut feeling" is that the McCanns did something to and with their daughter.

The trouble with this theory is it would require everyone from the PJ in Portugal to the FSS in Birmingham to collaborate. I

Of course, none of this explains the McCann’s bizarre behaviour in the absence of their daughter. If you want one specific irregularity, consider the fact that neither of them has ever addressed their missing child directly through the media. Apparently the FBI treats this as an indication of the parent’s guilt. On one occasion, when prompted by a reporter, who asked what would you say to Madeleine if she was listening? Kate said, “Only that we love you, but she already knows that.” She didn’t look into the camera, choke-up, or break-down, in what should have been a gut-wrenching moment. As much as I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, their actions betray them.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Let me just make one thing clear - I am not someone who leaps to conclusions like this lightly, and I do not judge anyone based on "one thing" which is what I keep reading here.

I did not rush to judgment. I wasn't here on the forum all summer because I assumed that Maddie had been kidnapped, and the police were investigating. I only read news stories now and then when there was a sighting somewhere, and I was hopeful they would find the little girl.

I knew that donors such as J. K. Rowling had given large sums of money to help, and I thought the parents must have integrity in order for people like that to be involved.

But then I read that the parents were suspects, and when I found out that from the beginning the police knew the children were alone in the room, that was my first "huh?" moment.

The second was that they had left them alone not once, but many nights, just to go eat and drink with their friends.

The third was reading that the parents had done a tour of Europe in the middle of all this - I had no idea.

The fourth was the Interviews that sounded strange.

The fifth was the DNA evidence that had made them suspects.

The sixth was the Rental Car and the meanderings all over the place.

The seventh is this latest "campaign" to build sympathy for the family by using a publicist. That is just one step towards a Defense in the case.

I got up to speed really fast on this case, but it's obvious that there are red herrings galore, and that no matter how great these people think they are, they made huge errors in judgment and they have to live with it. None of that changes whether Maddie died by accident, out of anger, or was kidnapped and murdered.

Once again, please note the "SEVEN" things I listed, and not just ONE. Thanks.

 

[Texana]

Right, Dr. Creepin, the oddest, most "huh" moment as Thoughtfox called it--when Kate was asked what she would say to Madeleine, and she said "She knows that we love her."

If you thought there was any chance your child was alive (and the McCanns insist that absent any evidence they accept, she is) then you would say something to him/her, directly, on the slight chance that your loving words might be heard by the child.

But Kate says "she knows we love her." I really don't think Kate was trying to prevaricate here. Rule one for anyone trying to hide anything, lie as little as possible. This really is what she believes is true.

"She knows we love her." Because she's in heaven, and knows all, and is at peace.

 

[CaliKid]

For me it was a combination of things- the McCanns downplaying the distance between the apartment and Tapas bar (their children's safety), their jaunts around Europe so early in the investigation, hardly ever discussing Madeleine as a person (and going to the past tense very early on) and saying they felt no rollercoaster surge of feelings when there was a sighting of her in other countries. My instincts told me that they knew exactly what happened to their daughter and therefore didn't need to talk to her or about her nor search for her.