Madeleine McCann - Netflix documentary on this case

[Louisenewzealand]

Has anyone listened to the podcast Maddie? I found it much better than the Netflix doco. It’s left no doubt in my mind that there’s more evidence she wasn’t a ducted than she was.

 

[Louisenewzealand]

Check this podcast out, I have found it the best for information:

10 episodes:

‎Maddie on Apple Podcasts

Yes! The podcast answers so many questions. It’s great.

 

[mrjitty]

Has anyone listened to the podcast Maddie? I found it much better than the Netflix doco. It’s left no doubt in my mind that there’s more evidence she wasn’t a ducted than she was.

Is there even a single piece of evidence she was abducted?

 

[mrjitty]

Has anyone listened to the podcast Maddie? I found it much better than the Netflix doco. It’s left no doubt in my mind that there’s more evidence she wasn’t a ducted than she was.

The Aussie media are really the only people looking at the case critically.

Not really surprising given the huge payouts the UK media had to make.

 

[fr brown]

I must have watched a different Netflix documentary. After watching it, I downloaded Looking for Madeleine, realizing that it's written from a pro-McCann viewpoint. From the book:

Years later, after study by the Metropolitan Police of the various attacks--and as the public responded to appeals broadcast on Crimewatch--Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood would update the information on potentially relevant incidents before and after Madeleine's disappearance. There had in fact been eighteen break-ins that involved children, he said, in properties where British families had been staying between 2004 and 2010. Five had occurred in Carvoeiro, nine at locations near either Carvoeiro or Albufeira, one in the village of Vilamoura and three in Praia da Luz itself.

In most of the incidents, there had been no forced entry and nothing had been stolen. In one chilling incident in 2006 in Praia da Luz, at the Ocean Club itself, children in a ground-floor apartment had seen a man break in through a patio door. He had taken nothing, but merely stood staring into a child's travel cot.

The previous year in Praia da Luz, however, a ten-year-old girl had been sexually assaulted. Nine children had been sexually assaulted in all. There had been three 'near misses'--where the offender was in close proximity to the potential victim--and six other occasions in which an intruder had been interrupted before he could carry out an attack.

 

[fr brown]

Also re the video of the cadaver dogs searching: in my experience, cadaver dog handlers try to avoid transferring "live" scent (especially the handler's) to sources, and, of course, dead scent to controls.

The face is not shown, but it might be Grime who grabs (with a gloved hand) Cuddle Cat after the dog finds it behind a cabinet door. Cuddle Cat had obviously been placed there so it would be found without the aid of a visual, but it may have contained plenty of handler or handler associate scent. Grime also pretty lavishly touches surfaces in Madeleine's bedroom he wants Eddie to check.

I agree with others that Grime drives home his interest in the McCann car, the one festooned with Madeleine posters. It's OK, imo, to get the dog to recheck, but once the dog leaves, move on to the next vehicle and come back later, treat each car the same. Don't telegraph your investment in having the dog find something.

If you're looking for a big, ripe source, cues and contaminants are less important, I suppose. But that wasn't the case here.

My $.02

 

[mrjitty]

I don't buy into the handler cues

At the airport, drug and Agriculture dogs are constantly specifically directed towards select passengers, bags etc the handler wants to focus on

But if there is nothing to hit on the dog doesn't give an indication

I have had a handler cue an Ag dog to go all over my luggage several times. It's just part of how they work together

 

[fr brown]

I don't buy into the handler cues

At the airport, drug and Agriculture dogs are constantly specifically directed towards select passengers, bags etc the handler wants to focus on

But if there is nothing to hit on the dog doesn't give an indication

I have had a handler cue an Ag dog to go all over my luggage several times. It's just part of how they work together

My work with cadaver dogs was primarily placing sources for the handlers (and collecting the sources afterwards). This was done so that the handlers wouldn't know where the sources were, and thus could not inadvertently cue the dog on a minute source. From time to time handlers would deliberately try to get a dog to alert on a non-existent source. (The correct response, non-alert, might be rewarded or might be treated neutrally, iirc.) So some dog handlers, at least, are mindful of cueing.

I never would touch a source with my hand, gloved or otherwise. Sources had to be maneuvered in and out of their containers. Nor did I ever see a handler actually touch a surface being searched. Being meticulous is just good practice.

 

[fr brown]

Coincidentally, a show just popped up on Netflix called "Exhibit A." A dog handler who I now know to be Martin Grime is featured in one of the episodes. He doesn't like the description "dog handler" because his job is much more critical to the process than that implies. (Hm.) He was flown in from Britain for a case in Michigan. (Why? There are a lot of certified cadaver dogs in the US.) In discussing his work, he said, "We come up with a scenario...." In the case in question, the scenario was that the small child was beaten to death because she had wet the bed. (It's not his job to help come up with a scenario, imo.) According to the episode, some saliva, some mucus and a small spot of blood were all that were found. (Taking the episode's word for that.) Grime testified in court.

The father says he was carjacked by a guy in a black balaclava. A black balaclava was found a block away by another, homegrown dog. The balaclava find was dismissed by the police for unrevealed reasons. The child was never found. The father, who is black and has a criminal history, is now serving life in prison.

Netflix doesn't always play it straight down the middle, to say the least, but some of the stuff that came out of Grime's mouth gave me pause.

 

[Keine Engel]

Coincidentally, a show just popped up on Netflix called "Exhibit A." A dog handler who I now know to be Martin Grime is featured in one of the episodes. He doesn't like the description "dog handler" because his job is much more critical to the process than that implies. (Hm.) He was flown in from Britain for a case in Michigan. (Why? There are a lot of certified cadaver dogs in the US.) In discussing his work, he said, "We come up with a scenario...." In the case in question, the scenario was that the small child was beaten to death because she had wet the bed. (It's not his job to help come up with a scenario, imo.) According to the episode, some saliva, some mucus and a small spot of blood were all that were found. (Taking the episode's word for that.) Grime testified in court.

The father says he was carjacked by a guy in a black balaclava. A black balaclava was found a block away by another, homegrown dog. The balaclava find was dismissed by the police for unrevealed reasons. The child was never found. The father, who is black and has a criminal history, is now serving life in prison.

Netflix doesn't always play it straight down the middle, to say the least, but some of the stuff that came out of Grime's mouth gave me pause.

But these were not the 'average' SAR/Cadaver certified dogs, neither was the handler or in the way they were trained thou.

There was a good reason why THESE specific dogs (& Grimes) were chosen & flown out to Portugal by the BRITISH police investigating the case.

All of which is explained in detail within the reports in the P.J. Files.

ETA: Link to files
Netflix documentary on this case released soon

 

[fr brown]

Grime also talks in one of the shows about how the FBI tests his dog. Carpet squares are placed around the edges of a room. One of the carpet squares contains a spot (of what? Cadaverine?). Eddie runs over the squares and finds the carpet square with the spot, which he can do easily. The problem is that Eddie could have become habituated to find the one item with "the spot" on it. At the very least, Eddie should have been proofed occasionally on a setup where none of the carpet squares had any dead scent. (How about two squares with scent?) Maybe Eddie was actually trained like that, but the program didn't indicate such.

So in the McCann case we see clothes arrayed around three sides of the room. Eddie runs along all the three sides of the room (on top of the clothes) and when he's done he goes back and grabs a T-shirt from the middle wall and barks. So why didn't he stop and alert when he ran over that piece of clothing the first time? It looks like Eddie is looking for the one item that's different from the others. In my opinion if you're going to do a search like that, the dog should be on a leash (not on top of the evidence) and he should alert as soon as he finds an item that meets his criteria.

In my brief stint helping out, buying cadaverine for training purposes was discussed. As far as I remember this wasn't done, but if you can buy that stuff in bottles, it's a potential problem.

 

[fr brown]

But these were not the 'average' SAR/Cadaver certified dogs, neither was the handler or in the way they were trained thou.

There was a good reason why THESE specific dogs (& Grimes) were chosen & flown out to Portugal by the BRITISH police investigating the case.

All of which is explained in detail within the reports in the P.J. Files.

ETA: Link to files
Netflix documentary on this case released soon

Did you read my comment? I wasn't questioning why the dogs were flown to Portugal. I was questioning why they were flown to the United States for the case in question.

From my observations the "average" cadaver dog is quite able to do it.

 

[fr brown]

Re: the "blood dog" Keela. In Looking for Madeleine the authors say that according to Grime in order for Keela to locate the source, the blood must have dried in situ. I'm not sure what that means. Don't alert on fallen-off scabs? But even not knowing exactly what that means, we know that whatever it was that Keela located in the McCanns' rental car, it hadn't dried in situ because the car was rented by them three weeks after Madeleine's disappearance.

(In the Netflix program, Amaral suggested that the McCanns kept Madeleine's body refrigerated for those three weeks.)

 

[graceness]

I just finished the whole series on Netflix.

As I said before I wanted to believe the parents so badly.

However, so many resources were used to find her and nothing has surfaced. The documentary spoke about the awful international pedophile rings (which would break any parents heart) but, why take a British girl when they could take someone else without as much focus? It does not make sense to me.

As much as the one fellow from Scotland Yard says he suspected them at first but then changed his mind as they seemed like caring parents - they can still be caring and loving parents but accidentally kill their child. Especially since KM specialized in anesthetics. Doctors tend to feel above the law and infallible.

What if everyone in their group participated or were aware that their children were being drugged (put to sleep every night). I am sorry but Tylenol will not knock a kid out that is not already sick - with a fever or pain.

So say all the parents drugged their kids with benzos (so why worry or check on them). Then Madeliene is found dead. Everyone in their group would be questioned and their kids would be tested for drugs in their system. (This is why I think the pact has stayed intact for so long).

I can’t figure out how they disposed of her body though.

I know you wrote this a while ago, but I wondered, after watching the documentary, if the tanner sighting was/is credible. Did she see someone who was taking MM who was just hiding the body and then the Smith's saw another movement of the body? I thought GM saying he didn't see Tanner or the man carrying the child could be a lie to distance himself from hiding the body. I guess I wondered if it was him she saw, but being dark and probably tipsy didn't know it. I don't know. I have to look at timeline again and when she saw what she said she saw.

 

[graceness]

Also re the video of the cadaver dogs searching: in my experience, cadaver dog handlers try to avoid transferring "live" scent (especially the handler's) to sources, and, of course, dead scent to controls.

The face is not shown, but it might be Grime who grabs (with a gloved hand) Cuddle Cat after the dog finds it behind a cabinet door. Cuddle Cat had obviously been placed there so it would be found without the aid of a visual, but it may have contained plenty of handler or handler associate scent. Grime also pretty lavishly touches surfaces in Madeleine's bedroom he wants Eddie to check.

I agree with others that Grime drives home his interest in the McCann car, the one festooned with Madeleine posters. It's OK, imo, to get the dog to recheck, but once the dog leaves, move on to the next vehicle and come back later, treat each car the same. Don't telegraph your investment in having the dog find something.

If you're looking for a big, ripe source, cues and contaminants are less important, I suppose. But that wasn't the case here.

My $.02

 

[graceness]

I thought the same thing, however, I started thinking about the DNA and those places the dogs hit on did turn up DNA, just inconclusive results.

 

[graceness]

I’m with you for most of your posts. But what is so important about the MCCanns that they can enlist government and MI5 help?

Politics. It's all politics. Amanda Knox. Natalie Holloway. I, an American, was highly critical of Italy's handling of Knox and the Dutch of Natalie. I paid close attention to both cases and actually felt the cultural, national, political divisions. I knew my anger or frustration at what I was witnessing had the national "umph" behind it, but tried not to let it get to me. Interestingly, now that I'm thinking about it, I was upset with Italy's harsh treatment of Amanda Knox and I was upset with the Dutch investigation of Natalie Holloway... Seemingly the same things that upset the Brits and Portuguese about one another.

 

[fridaybaker]

There is one thing that I cannot understand:

If the McCann's were involved in their child's disappearance what happened to her body?

They were not locals, or entirely familiar with the area. So how and where would they have disposed of her remains so they wouldn't be found?

Surely some remains would have been found by someone in the area/region?

I know there are wells in that region, but I would think they'd have been searched by now, due to tourists and locals etc who have been fascinated by the case for the last (almost) 12 years?

moo

McCanns had "people in place" immediately. Before the performance on Thursday evening. Murat flew from England, a powerful PR group put in place, etc. Odd in itself that, no? Lot's of help from lots of people very early on.

And, there's always the local C. Freud. Yes, yes. they say they only met him after the pedo-ring snatched their lovely little girl with the perfect genitals. However, I find that very difficult to believe. Shortly afterwards, Kate and Gerry were laughing it up, enjoying egg and watercress sandwiches and drinks with the serial child molester, joking about Kate being a nymphomaniac.

Everything related to these people stinks to high heaven. That "make-up" photo? How about the video produced by a McCann insider showing several similar, sensual, images of Maddie the THREE YEAR-OLD? Who does these things?

Kate has stated that the "make-up" photo came about when Maddie "got into the dressing box". Paraphrasing here, but that is pretty close to the actual verbiage. Now, I ask you: How many 3 year-olds are that skilled in eye-shadow application? Mine would have had blue cheeks, lipstick on the cheeks, maybe some in the hair. Someone applied that make-up. Who? Again, who? If it was for a (sick in itself) glamour-shoot, why not admit it? Why the stupid (to any sensate-being) story about raiding the dressing box?

One can go on and on and on about the garbage foisted off onto the public about this case. The most disgusting thing of all to me is how many people buy it.

Yes, folks, there a pedo-ring alright. But they didn't abduct Maddie.

 

[fridaybaker]

Is there even a single piece of evidence she was abducted?

Mrjitty, I'm glad you are on the case! I've only just started following this thread, but have followed the case outside WS for some time. I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts here.

 

[graceness]

Mrjitty, I'm glad you are on the case! I've only just started following this thread, but have followed the case outside WS for some time. I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts here.

Right. The only evidence for an abduction is she is gone. But that doesn't mean her disappearance can only be explained by abduction. I find it really strange they pushed the abduction theory immediately. To me, that's a sign of guilt. They weren't there and refused to even consider she wandered off. Why didn't Kate look out the open window? I mean, if you left your kid alone and saw a window open, wouldn't you think first they fell out a window they opened while you were not there because you were out with friends? And they refuse to admit that leaving her like that was wrong. How could you lose your child by abduction when you were out drinking and not realize how negligent you actually were?