Theories

[Jayelles]

Hi Jay,

What do you make of the sniffer dogs alerting?

The dogs were brought in 3 months after Madeleine went missing.

I think sniffer dogs are an excellent tool but without a "find", the alert on its own is pretty useless. The dogs alert for blood or human remains, but they can't tell us WHOSE blood or remains.

It's a bit like a metal detector. They tell us where to dig, but a beep doesn't always mean gold.

I think the notion that the McCanns transported her putrifying body in a hire car three weeks after killing her is ridiculous. One expert in an early British documentary about the case said you'd have been able to smell the body at either 100ft or 100 metres - either way, it would have been a dreadful stench. To suggest the McCanns were able to drive to Spain with this smell in the car is pretty ludicrous.

Back to the dogs - Eddie, the dog in the McCann case was the same dog who alerted 26 times at the jersey Childrens's Home. Those 26 alerts yielded hundreds of animal bones, two ancient human bones and a coconut shell!!

This is all on the BBC website.

I thinkn it's a pity they didn't bring the dogs in at the start. I also think that the video of the dog at the car compound was being led by the handler. The handler very obviously behaved differently at the McCann car. He called the dog back three times to that one car. It was the only car he stopped at and stayed at and the only one he tapped. I think a defence attorney would have a field day with it.

The dog alerts on their own is not evidence. The evidence is the find which in this case was nothing which proved the McCanns committed any crime.

 

[Isabella]

The problem with your theory is the PP doesnt believe it was a kidnap. And secondly i dont think its as common as you make out for "baby listening services" to be used there. That was what shocked so many people there..that these people..Drs no less were going out drinking and leaving there children alone.

 

[Jayelles]

The problem with your theory is the PP doesnt believe it was a kidnap. And secondly i dont think its as common as you make out for "baby listening services" to be used there. That was what shocked so many people there..that these people..Drs no less were going out drinking and leaving there children alone.

Well two things.

1) Did you see the Mark Warner Brochure for 2007 that April posted? It says ALL their resorts offer baby listening.

2) There were interviews with locals of Luz at the time of the abduction where they said that the British and Dutch guests often put their kids to bed and went to the bars/restaurants. It was said disapprovingly.

Perhaps you don't believe the Mark Warner brochure or the Portuguese locals?

 

[Jayelles]

Another reason I think Madeleine is alive is because if the person who took her was into killing his little victims, he'd need a constant supply of them.

She was only four when she went missing - i.e. old enough to be toilet trained but young enough to still be a child for quite some number of years.

I think the person who took her either had no access to children of his own, or is into organised crime where the crime is a "business" and kept very separate from their own families.

There are plenty of examples of planned abductions - the woman in the box (Carol someone), the Black Panther (Donald Neilson) and the kidnapped estate agent. In all of these cases, the abductor prepared for the abduction and had the "accomodation" ready in advance.

Madeleine's disappearance has all the hallmarks of premeditation and an organised criminal. The only parents-did-it scenario which would fit with the facts is a premediated one and that is IMO the least likely of all scenarios by a long stretch.