Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,521
The problem I have with this is that a watching abductor would surely go in as soon as the parents had left. He might wait a few minutes in case one of them came back for something forgotten, but no more than that. The longer he left it, the more chance of one of the parents returning.

True. But, note that the data clearly tells us that GM and KM were one of the first to arrive at the restaurant and that the other T7 dripped in later. So, he might have considered moving, but then constantly saw other couples coming down the street and he abandoned/deferred the attempt. When they were all in the restaurant and the first check was done by GM, it would have been more 'quiet' on the street to make a move.
 
  • #1,522
But that would mean that dogs followed Amelies scent and Amelie went walking to the car park?

These dogs were sent in the night between the 3rd and 4th May, the night Madeleine went missing?

There is no time stamp on scent trails


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #1,523
True. But, note that the data clearly tells us that GM and KM where one of the first to arrive at the restaurant and that the other T7 dripped in later. So, he might have considered moving, but then constantly saw other couples coming down the street and he abandoned/deferred the attempt. When they were all in the restaurant and the first check was done by GM, it would have been more 'quiet' on the street to make a move.

Indeed. They might have waited for the next check-up. If Oldfield didn't go into the room and see the children then Madeleine could have been taken any time after Gerry's visit at 9.05 and before Kate returned at 10, IMO.
 
  • #1,524
I don't think there is any proof this guy is the tractor guy or has anything to do with this case.

I never said he was, I said I think the person who posted the picture was using it to make a point about racism since they believed racism was the reason why he was a suspect. Only that person can talk about what they meant though so I'll leave it to that user to explain.

A long revenge as i found out he was sacked in 2006. Would he keep a grudge going for months on end hardly.

Thanks for clarifying. Do you have a source? If he was indeed sacked in '06 then I think he can safely be ruled out. If he was doing it as a grudge he would have done so already and his presence there that night could be explained by the fact that he could have been there with friends or, if he was fired just because a seasonal contract was up, to see if they had any open jobs.

I can only speak for myself, but if I was beng interviewed in these circumstances I would mention the presence of thieving intruders. Even if it was a few weeks or months back. The police always ask for information "no matter how trivial it may seem" and on that basis I would mention it, and leave it to the detectives to work out if it was relevant or not.

The name business is completely irrelevant in my view. He may just have forgotten the other guy's surname.

While I agree with most of what you've said - I too would have mentioned anything suspicious in the vicinity even if it had been a long time before, just in case - I also think he was acting out of prejudice. Do we even know why the Roma people he saw in December were there... for all we know they could have just been passing by, lost, meeting someone, etc.

The problem I have with this is that a watching abductor would surely go in as soon as the parents had left. He might wait a few minutes in case one of them came back for something forgotten, but no more than that. The longer he left it, the more chance of one of the parents returning.

Excellent point, I hadn't thought about that.

Maybe he wasn't exactly watching just generally keeping an eye on Maddie and the apartment. Then when he noticed the McCanns and their friends were gone and decided to take the opportunity, but didn't (for whatever reason) know from the beginning that they had left.


---

Again, I'm on the fence and trying to consider all possible angles and I'm not saying I believe an intruder did it or the McCanns or the Cape Verdian man or Santa Claus - so if I've just argued for a theory you disagree with, don't take it personally. I'm just running through the various possibilities in my head, while I think this looks very bad for the McCanns I also think it's important to check all angles.
 
  • #1,525
Indeed. They might have waited for the next check-up. If Oldfield didn't go into the room and see the children then Madeleine could have been taken any time after Gerry's visit at 9.05 and before Kate returned at 10, IMO.

Exactly. With a stretch (not needed, but I share it anyway), it could even have happened that MO almost caught him in the act and that he quickly hid in the closet or the parent's bedroom and left when MO had completed his 'checking on the kids'. Maddie being awake and the sound of MO coming up the stairs could have forced the abductor to grab Maddie and make sure she remained totally silent.
 
  • #1,526
While I agree with most of what you've said - I too would have mentioned anything suspicious in the vicinity even if it had been a long time before, just in case - I also think he was acting out of prejudice. Do we even know why the Roma people he saw in December were there... for all we know they could have just been passing by, lost, meeting someone, etc.

He may well be prejudiced against gypsies, of course, but looking at his statement he is quite specific about one incident of three gypsies attempting to steal firewood - it sounds as if he disturbed them. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance, but I would have mentioned it if asked about suspicious people or incidents.

Luis F. M. Ferro - Maintenance worker - Date of statement May 7, 2007

Comes to the case records and in the quality of a witness. That he is a maintenance worker at the tourist resort "Ocean Club" since March 2006. That in this tourist resort he is in charge of he maintenance of pools and all that relates with the properties. That in the sequence of of his work he moves around the whole resort, without restrictions, and that he knows it fairly well. Asked, he states that he is aware of the disappearance of the English girl named Madeleine, and that he learned about it on May 4 through the news in the media. He states that he worked at the resort close to 15h30 on the day of the girl's disappearance. Asked, the deponent refers that in the scope of his work and before the day of the girl's disappearance, he has only met the mother, whose name he does not know. This took place on a Tuesday, May 1, in the sequence of a maintenance job that he had to do inside the apartment where the family where lodged, that is, in block G5 letter A. That job was carried out between 10h and 11h, by the deponent and one colleague of his, that he only knows as Mario, and consisted in the repairment of the shutters from the parents bedroom. Following that they also taught the mother of the girl how to operate the washing machine. The lady in question was alone in the apartment. The only rooms in the apartment where he and his colleague were was in the kitchen and in the parents' bedroom. The deponent states that besides that job he does not know if any other work was carried out at the apartment since the arrival of the family to the resort until the day of the girl's disappearance. Asked he states that in the days preceding the girl's disappearance no one had any strange conversations with him related to the tourists, their children, the apartment, the facilities or the running of the resort. He also did not hear conversations of that nature to any other people. On the presence of a person or persons that would have exhibited a strange behaviour the deponent states that he did not see anything unusual. He just refers that, about four months ago, he detected the presence of three gipsies, near a warehouse of the resort, located close by the "Millenium" restaurant, who were trying to take some firewood that was there. The deponent knows that because that area is a warehouse zone and as such has few people circulating, it is usual for individuals of gipsy ethnicity to wander around there searching for scraps. Several thefts have taken place in that area and the deponent believes that their authorship lies with those individuals of gipsy ethnicity whose identifications are unknown to him. Asked, the deponent states that since the disappearance of the girl, Madeleine, until today he has not heard any comments that could help enlighten the motive of the disappearance, and as such, he has no other information that could contribute to that end. And more he didn't say.
 
  • #1,527
Exactly. With a stretch (not needed, but I share it anyway), it could even have happened that MO almost caught him in the act and that he quickly hid in the closet or the parent's bedroom and left when MO had completed his 'checking on the kids'. Maddie being awake and the sound of MO coming up the stairs could have forced the abductor to grab Maddie and make sure she remained totally silent.

Could the abductor have hidden without Maddie? As in someone comes inside to check on the kids, they them opening the door and hides away quickly. The person checks on the kids, leaves, and they come out and take her, knowing it would be another several minutes before anyone checked again.
 
  • #1,528
Could the abductor have hidden without Maddie? As in someone comes inside to check on the kids, they them opening the door and hides away quickly. The person checks on the kids, leaves, and they come out and take her, knowing it would be another several minutes before anyone checked again.

Nice thought. Of course it induces the new risk of discovery and the need for a good hiding spot, but it certainly would reduce the risk of being caught in the act even further.
 
  • #1,529
1.Sorry, my posting of playground man was meant to be 'ironic'.

2. CdM tells the tractor guy was sacked during the McCanns stay.. so there is a possibility Madeleine knew him.

3. I don't believe Madeleine was carried from the apartment, since the GNR dogs are showing her 'walking' as her last/freshest trail
 
  • #1,530
Could the abductor have hidden without Maddie? As in someone comes inside to check on the kids, they them opening the door and hides away quickly. The person checks on the kids, leaves, and they come out and take her, knowing it would be another several minutes before anyone checked again.

IIRC that was one theory put out there by the McCanns. The abductor was hiding in the apartment.
 
  • #1,531
1.Sorry, my posting of playground man was meant to be 'ironic'.

2. CdM tells the tractor guy was sacked during the McCanns stay.. so there is a possibility Madeleine knew him.

3. I don't believe Madeleine was carried from the apartment, since the GNR dogs are showing her 'walking' as her last/freshest trail

Do you have a link to your last statement?
 
  • #1,532
  • #1,533
  • #1,534
  • #1,535
I don't believe there was any abduction. Three kids to choose from; Madeleine being the farthest away from the door. No window abduction, I still am of the most humble opinion there was no abduction; but a cover up. And; not a very good one. You'd think Scotland Yard could do better. But so far, not imo.
 
  • #1,536
  • #1,537
I would have thought that a whole body would leave a scent for the dogs to track, just something in the air in general.
 
  • #1,538
Sorry a link to the article / report so I can read it and make my own assumptions. Thanks


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-Madeleines-scent-took-nearby-car-park.html

article-1042099-022F939200000578-880_468x304.jpg


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PEDRO_ESTEVES.htm

first time:
That after the dogs were given this scent from the towel and near apartment 5A of block 5, the first sniffer dog headed to the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he turned to block 5, using a circumvented route to block 5, and came to the road between this block and the leisure area of the resort (pools, restaurant, etc), and turned to the left, or around the referred to apartment and headed to the main road.
Having reached there, he crossed the road and next to a wall of block 6, crossed the road again, the dog turned right and headed to the parking zone of the resort. More specifically, went next to the light post and began smelling that location.

second time:
When he effected the same operation with the second dog, in general, this dog took the same route and headed to the light post and showed interest there and ended by losing the scent at this point. It should be stated that the one difference is that this second dog did not head toward the entrance to the restaurant and pool zone.
But he does state that the dogs followed a 'scent trail', a signal for the animal who was working. He is certain that they were not conditioned in any direction.

- None of the dogs used in this search action, after having smelled the towel, went into block 5 but headed to the zone which gives access to the road between the apartment and the leisure area.


third time:
- After completing the search in the interior of block 5, verandas and apartment access, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route he had taken on 04/05/07, being the road between that apartment and the leisure area-pool sand restaurant, and headed toward the same parking area. There he lost the scent of the search. This situation may be explained by the fact that the biggest concentration of odours in that location have been preserved and protected from the winds due to the adjoining walls. When this dog got to the main road, he turned right where a large dispersion of odours existed. Here the dog lost the scent.

fourt time
- The second dog was submitted to the same operation. He too showed interest in the door of apartment 5J. Here he got up on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head in such a way as to catch the odour. As mentioned previously, this interest may be due to various factors but it is certain that at this location the dog scented an intense odour. In the exterior, the sniffer-dog immediately took the first road, heading toward the parking area next to block 6, and there lost the scent.

Dogs track walking humans

TRAILING DOGS

The trailing dog is often referred to as a "tracking" dog, although "tracking" and "trailing" are not the same to the purist. The trailing dog is directed to find a specific person by following minute particles of human tissue or skin cells cast off by the person as he or she travels. These heavier-than-air particles, which contain this person's scent, will normally be close to the ground or on nearby foliage, so the trailing dog will frequently have its "nose the ground," unlike the air scent dog.

A Bloodhound is typically trained for scent discrimination. Each dog is usually worked in a harness, on a leash, and given an uncontaminated scent article (such as a piece of clothing) belonging to the missing person. The dog follows that scent and no other. At times, the dog may track, following the person's footsteps, or air scent, and home in on the subject's scent.
http://www.ussartf.org/dogs_search_rescue.htm
 
  • #1,539

None of the above supports the statement Madeleine was alive and walking that route.

None of the above supports that it was indeed Madeline's towel.

Three children shared one toothbrush but each used their own towel?

Not buying it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It says in your last post the dogs track footsteps OR. Please note what comes after the "OR"
 
  • #1,540
I would have thought that a whole body would leave a scent for the dogs to track, just something in the air in general.

these dogs were the ones sniffing the ground, not sniffing the air.. they sniff the body particulars that are heavier than air which fall to the bottom, therefore to the ground
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
1,690
Total visitors
1,781

Forum statistics

Threads
632,330
Messages
18,624,778
Members
243,091
Latest member
ajf
Back
Top