"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[Cappuccino]

I would say 'woof!' to that

So would I. Woof to the idea that innocent till proven guilty means anything, also woof to the idea that innocent till cleared by the police means anything, and woof to the idea that being dropped from the status of a suspect by the Portuguese police who originally investigated the case means anything.

Of course, all guilty parents who have done something to their child go knocking on the doors of Scotland Yard demanding that they investigate the case...

Woof. :waitasec:

 

[sherlockh]

So would I. Woof to the idea that innocent till proven guilty means anything, also woof to the idea that innocent till cleared by the police means anything, and woof to the idea that being dropped from the status of a suspect by the Portuguese police who originally investigated the case means anything.

Of course, all guilty parents who have done something to their child go knocking on the doors of Scotland Yard demanding that they investigate the case...

Woof. :waitasec:

I don't buy into any of the McCann propaganda. I hope SY will take their job seriously, but by specifying that Madeleine is still alive before even concluding the review then I am not very hopefull. Will they review/re-test the DNA evidence? It is 2012 now, a little mixed DNA sample shouldn't stop them from specifying what exactly the chances are that 15 markers of Madeleine's DNA were found. Review the dog alerts, interview witnesses, really interrogate the McCann's please, lie detector tests if possible, do a thorough reconstruction, etc. What exactly is the SY doing at the moment besides chasing Madeleine sightings all over the world?

The Portuguese were pressured to drop the case against the McCanns. The McCanns let them close it and I doubt they will ever ask them to reopen it. It is much safer to ask their own SY. Some day hopefully their arrogance will bite them in the foot. There must be serious investigators working at SY who don't buy into the propaganda. Hoping to be surprised one day but until then I don't really expect this case ever to be solved.

 

[fabgod]

Or treated like a long term lab experiment that has outgrown its testube. Was the lack of parential attachment deliberate as if part of a long term plan? The entire holiday for the purpose of fulfilling that aim? The final stage set for the "apparent" abduction? Replete with all the witnesses required? Some maybe dupes, some maybe not?

Ok,
if your idea of a plan is taken as correct, why Portugal?
why not stage an abduction in the UK, less people involved, fewer logistical problems etc?

 

[BritsKate]

D'ya know what? A parent's action, or inaction, will never be enough to convince me of their innocence.

Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Diane Downs all begged law enforcement to find the perpetrator who kidnapped or murdered their children. All were convicted of filicide. Just recently we watched Stuart Hazel make an impassioned plea to the media - a plea that led many websleuthers to concur he couldn't have anything to do with Tia's disappearance. He's obviously since been charged with her murder and her body located in his house.

Sometimes the arrogance of a criminal proves utterly astounding.

(And I'd argue that 'innocent until proven guilty' is rather a moot point in the court of public opinion. Just because the McCann's haven't been charged with neglect doesn't mean I feel they didn't commit neglect. Not guilty and innocent are wholly different labels. Unless someone else is convicted of disappearing Maddie public theorising of parental involvement will persist. JMO)

 

[orora]

Ok. Madeleine was a "long term lab experiment that has outgrown its test tube." Presumably the fact that your suggestion is off the wall and completely without any supporting evidence is fine with you.

Well not really but, Madeleine was a test tube baby and I did use that as a bit of a play on words.

The parenting issues have been discussed with some sticking up for the parents no matter what. Common sense, they didn't and aren't behaving quite right. Walk away leaving the door unlocked, strange place, tourist mecca? Sure...kids were how old? There is something not quite right about the parents behaviour no matter whether Scotland Yard or any other investigative body finds no evidence that they were involved in the dissapearance of their own child. I could care less, I know the difference.

For those who support them, there is nothing more that can be said. What that means and how far it goes is another story for some. We may be looking at parents with something to hide; they have been looked at suspiciously by many and not completely exonerated. We have been left with more lack of evidence with which to show guilt than a preponderance of evidence to exonerate. Stale mate/ dividing line. Sure innocent until proven guilty in a court of law but if seriously searching for answers, truth, anything is fair game. You sometimes have to remove your own preconceptions to get anywhere. I may have taken a little liberty with that both to push the status quo buttons and to exagerate the response. By the look of things, Scotland Yard will exonerate the parents and this will be the end of it. It will remain unsolved forever unless something changes imo. Anyone with any original ideas or some last thoughts aside from status quo may as well throw them in now.
..
The comment I was originally responding to seems so much easier to accept now. I'll leave it there.

Quote:

Almost as if the child is an object and not a person, thats my feeling.

 

[fabgod]

I don't think it was premeditated as the coverup was rather sloppy. 'Funny' how every thread sooner or later ends up discussing the dogs. That will always be the weakness of the IDI theory. Just looking at the number of posts, and the number of excuses made up to explain away 10 alerts made by fabulous Eddie (all pointing in the direction of the McCanns and no alerts elsewhere) already makes it clear that these are very troubling for any intruder theory. Anybody can decide for themselves what are the chances of these 10 alerts all being wrong when the dog never was wrong before (forget the silly stories about dogs alerting to coconuts). Then connect the alerts and the story appears of what happened and what the McCanns did with their child. In that context all their lies, inconsistencies, unwillingness to cooperate, strange behavior, etc starts to make a bit more sense.

The real question for me is still, what exactly did they coverup? The coverup still shows their child neglect even though they tried to minimize it by making up so many checks that there hardly is any time for an abduction to have occurred. Why did they not hide the body in a place where Madeleine could be found so they could bury her, blame it on the abductor and case closed? This is where IMO the speculations of accidental overdose or even physical abuse come from. There must be a reason why they did not want her to be found. They might not just be covering up their child neglect, but might also be the murderers of their own child. This is to me is the real mystery. All just my opinion

Sherlockh,
If it was a cover up and a last minute one, it still begs the question as to how they managed to do a clean up, put the cover up plans in place, get everybody on board, all in what, 30 minutes?

I have already stated earlier, I think the behaviour was off, something to me didnt seem right, but I just cant see how they could put a plan into place so quickly if it wasnt premeditated.
Next, if it was a cover up, are you thinking that the UK police are involved in the cover up?

I do question the statements of Andy Redwood in an ongoing review, for him to say that, either he has specific knowledge that leads him to think that way or something a whole lot darker is taking place.

I cant see that all these Governments and their officials, the UK police, people like Brian Kennedy, Clarence Mitchell, the families of the McCaans as well as the tapas friends, would all cover up a death of a little girl, surely somebody would have spoken, somebody would have cracked?

I still think there is another piece that we are not seeing, we are looking in the wrong direction somewhere, there is a key to this, but I cant see what it is

 

[fabgod]

Well not really but, Madeleine was a test tube baby and I did use that as a bit of a play on words.

The parenting issues have been discussed with some sticking up for the parents no matter what. Common sense, they didn't and aren't behaving quite right. Walk away leaving the door unlocked, strange place, tourist mecca? Sure...kids were how old? There is something not quite right about the parents behaviour no matter whether Scotland Yard or any other investigative body finds no evidence that they were involved in the dissapearance of their own child. I could care less, I know the difference.

For those who support them, there is nothing more that can be said. What that means and how far it goes is another story for some. We may be looking at parents with something to hide; they have been looked at suspiciously by many and not completely exonerated. We have been left with more lack of evidence with which to show guilt than a preponderance of evidence to exonerate. Stale mate/ dividing line. Sure innocent until proven guilty in a court of law but if seriously searching for answers, truth, anything is fair game. You sometimes have to remove your own preconceptions to get anywhere. I may have taken a little liberty with that both to push the status quo buttons and to exagerate the response. By the look of things, Scotland Yard will exonerate the parents and this will be the end of it. It will remain unsolved forever unless something changes imo. Anyone with any original ideas or some last thoughts aside from status quo may as well throw them in now.
..
The comment I was originally responding to seems so much easier to accept now. I'll leave it there.

Quote:

Good post in my opinion Orora,
I understand and accept that everyone is entitiled to their opinion an I also accept that there are many people out there that are more intelligent than I am and understand things better than me.

Having only recently looked at depth into the case, the statements etc,

I find it hard to understand how people do not think that there is something fundamentally flawed about the case.
The people who believe the MCCanns are innocent of everything, point to an abductor, yet, the only evidence in support of an abductor is the fact that Madeleine is gone, there simply is no other evidence.

The Jane Tanner sighting isnt really credible in the fact that almost everything about the statement is flawed, from location to people not seeing her as she walked directly past them, to the lack of light available to see what she claims, even the distance from herself to the abductor.

That is before we even get to the matter of how the abductor got in and out of the apartment in the time available.
That is not to say Tanner didnt see anyone, I just personally dont think it was Madeleine for the points above.

 

[brit1981]

I do not think using the front page of a colouring book signifies anything other than people needed something to write on quickly and it was the first thing that came to hand. They were on holiday, how many of them brought writing material with them.

Also we have no idea when that particular time line was written or when the bit about Tanner's sighting was added, that could easily have been written down after the initial timeline when Jane had told the police what she had seen.
As for eddie, firstly he is not the world's top sniffer dog, according to south yorkshire police he was not even the most successfully dog there. But more importanly he was not a cadaver dog. No cadaver dog was used in the mccann search. he was a recovery dog, and was trained to alert to bodily fluids as well as decomposure. he cannot tell people what he is alerting to, so without an actual body it is equally possible he was alerting to bodily fluids. Grimes states that he will alert to bodily fluids in his report to the PJ (it has been posted on the cadaver dog thread). Plus there is the fact that dogs in the Uk, including Eddie, have made mistakes when searching. And yes it is an embarressing truth eddie alerted to coconut. It is also true that according to south yorkshire police eddie only have found one body when searching on his own, out of about seventeen cases. the claims of him being the world's top dog are baseless and have not been confirmed by anyone. But if we make the assumption Eddie was correct because he according to Grimes alerts to bodily fluids his alerts mean nothing if he does nto actually recover a victim.

I think we have to remember that the PJ have said there was no evidence to suspect the parents, the PJ have said the parents were not involved, and Scotland yard have said it was a stranger abduction, and that they have seen more information than we have. I really cannnot see how people on the internet with no experience of criminal investigations, and no access to all the information can claim to know more than Scotland yard.

As for jane Tanner being involved in a cover-up, when and why was she asked to do this? if she did nto leave the table why is everyone at the table saying she did? If david payne is lying about seeing madeleine, why and when was he asked to lie, and is everyone who saw him leave the tennis courts also covering up?

 

[BritsKate]

I do not think using the front page of a colouring book signifies anything other than people needed something to write on quickly and it was the first thing that came to hand. They were on holiday, how many of them brought writing material with them.

Also we have no idea when that particular time line was written or when the bit about Tanner's sighting was added, that could easily have been written down after the initial timeline when Jane had told the police what she had seen.
As for eddie, firstly he is not the world's top sniffer dog, according to south yorkshire police he was not even the most successfully dog there. But more importanly he was not a cadaver dog. No cadaver dog was used in the mccann search. he was a recovery dog, and was trained to alert to bodily fluids as well as decomposure. he cannot tell people what he is alerting to, so without an actual body it is equally possible he was alerting to bodily fluids. Grimes states that he will alert to bodily fluids in his report to the PJ (it has been posted on the cadaver dog thread). Plus there is the fact that dogs in the Uk, including Eddie, have made mistakes when searching. And yes it is an embarressing truth eddie alerted to coconut. It is also true that according to south yorkshire police eddie only have found one body when searching on his own, out of about seventeen cases. the claims of him being the world's top dog are baseless and have not been confirmed by anyone. But if we make the assumption Eddie was correct because he according to Grimes alerts to bodily fluids his alerts mean nothing if he does nto actually recover a victim.

I think we have to remember that the PJ have said there was no evidence to suspect the parents, the PJ have said the parents were not involved, and Scotland yard have said it was a stranger abduction, and that they have seen more information than we have. I really cannnot see how people on the internet with no experience of criminal investigations, and no access to all the information can claim to know more than Scotland yard.

As for jane Tanner being involved in a cover-up, when and why was she asked to do this? if she did nto leave the table why is everyone at the table saying she did? If david payne is lying about seeing madeleine, why and when was he asked to lie, and is everyone who saw him leave the tennis courts also covering up?

BBM

I haven't seen anyone here claim anything of the sort. This seems designed to shut down intelligent discourse. If Scotland Yard, the FBI, or Interpol were infallible then every criminal would be apprehended, charged, and convicted promptly. As we know no law enforcement organisation is infallible though.

Personally I believe that McCann supporters, law enforcement included, fully believe what the McCann's have said. I do not personally believe it myself. If they're eventually charged with murdering Maddie, so be it, but if not there will always be part of me that wonders if they were involved. Much the same as the Ramseys, Bradley-Irwins, Biryukova, Aisenbergs, DiPietros, Lunsfords, et al.

Fortunately, though I hold no degree and am obviously not as intelligent as those who investigate crime, my thoughts aren't policed.

 

[fabgod]

BritsKate
I think you hit the nail head on there, good post, everytime the Madeleine threads are involved in a conversation, from whatever angle, it seems to instantly get derailed byt the same posts, nothing positive or challenging is brought to the arena, just in my view, disinformation that is seemingly designed to stall any constructive conversation.

I just choose to ignore now, I ve tried all other avenues but it still ends in the same result unfortunately.

Websleuths is here for looking into cases and bringing constructive points to the table for discussion and debate, anyone who doesnt want to do that doesnt really need to be here as far as I can see

 

[brit1981]

I think when redwood came out after investigating for a year and said he believes it was a stranger abduction, it was a big hint he believed the parents. There are people of course saying he is now part of the cover-up, but to be honest it is getting comical. If anyone does not believe the mccanns are somehow implicated they are considered ot be part of it, or niiave at best, yet not one person claiming they do nto belive the mccanns has come up with a good reason, it is all oh but madeleine was born via IVf, they are doctors, the police are covering it up, the US ambassador is covering it up, the FSS are covering it up etc.
And if anyone points out flaws in the arguement against the mccanns they get accused of disinformation, even if they are telling the truth. I pointed out some mistakes made by reovery dogs, like the failure to find Tia sharp (the dogs searched and found nothing over two days befor eshe was eventually discovered), the false alerts in the jersey case, and the shannon mathews case, and I was accused of disinfomation even though the dogs could not be relied upon in these cases.
What actual evidence is there against the mccanns or to suggest they are lying. None.

 

[BritsKate]

I think when redwood came out after investigating for a year and said he believes it was a stranger abduction, it was a big hint he believed the parents. There are people of course saying he is now part of the cover-up, but to be honest it is getting comical. If anyone does not believe the mccanns are somehow implicated they are considered ot be part of it, or niiave at best, yet not one person claiming they do nto belive the mccanns has come up with a good reason, it is all oh but madeleine was born via IVf, they are doctors, the police are covering it up, the US ambassador is covering it up, the FSS are covering it up etc.
What actual evidence is there against the mccanns or to suggest they are lying. None.

I'm sorry but to those people these may very well be good reasons that they suspect the McCann's. A personal suspicion does not equate to a conviction within the courts. It's just that - a personal suspicion usually honed on personal experience. We don't need evidence to feel what we feel or believe what we believe. Evidence can be reserved for the courtroom.

I obviously have no 'proof' for my personal feelings that the McCann's committed neglect that night. The law is broad and the McCann's were never charged with a crime, right? Ah, but I am a mother who has never left her children alone at night in an unsecured room where I could neither see nor hear them. (I also have the experience of moving my kiddos abroad to a foreign country - doing so only made me more protective.)

I obviously have no 'evidence' the McCann's committed a far worse crime that night. They haven't been charged, they have many supporters, and of course many argue there is no evidence, right? Ah, but I have researched filicide for a quarter century and I draw upon that knowledge of statistics and previous crime to lead me to the conclusion that I do not personally believe the McCann's have been forthright and honest. Is it enough for a conviction? Of course not but it is enough for my own personal suspicions to be raised. Does it make the McCann's guilty of something sinister? Nope. Just me being suspicious we don't know, and probably never will, the whole story.

Just because someone has not been convicted of the crime, or there is lack of evidence, does not mean the crime didn't occur. :moo:

 

[sherlockh]

Sherlockh,
If it was a cover up and a last minute one, it still begs the question as to how they managed to do a clean up, put the cover up plans in place, get everybody on board, all in what, 30 minutes?

I have already stated earlier, I think the behaviour was off, something to me didnt seem right, but I just cant see how they could put a plan into place so quickly if it wasnt premeditated.
Next, if it was a cover up, are you thinking that the UK police are involved in the cover up?

I do question the statements of Andy Redwood in an ongoing review, for him to say that, either he has specific knowledge that leads him to think that way or something a whole lot darker is taking place.

I cant see that all these Governments and their officials, the UK police, people like Brian Kennedy, Clarence Mitchell, the families of the McCaans as well as the tapas friends, would all cover up a death of a little girl, surely somebody would have spoken, somebody would have cracked?

I still think there is another piece that we are not seeing, we are looking in the wrong direction somewhere, there is a key to this, but I cant see what it is

Thanks. I don't think it was literally a last minute coverup. I am not exactly sure where you get the 30 minutes from but if you go through the witness reports that claim to have seen Madeleine that day then they are not all that convincing. Especially if (what I suspect) they faked Madeleine's creche attendance by simply signing the sheet then it is understandable that the nanny got all confused. I believe she claimed to have read stories to Madeleine but that actually happened the day before. Either way there are still hours that evening where something could have happened to Madeleine.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id28.html

This is where the speculation starts and I can understand there are different theories on when and how it happened. I personally suspect Madeleine died the night before and the coverup was a replay of what happened that night except this time they claimed an abduction and not that they found Madeleine behind the sofa. So rather a simple plan without thinking about the details as in through which door came who, how did the intruder enter, replacing the 2 toothbrushes that they used to clean up the blood, make sure Madeleine's bed actually looks like somebody slept in it, etc..

I think outside the McCanns and maybe a few of their friends nobody is covering up the death of Madeleine. Outside parties that have chosen their side might actually believe them, or don't really care and just choose their side for selfish (political?) reasons. They not necessarily know that the parents were involved in the death of their child.

So I don't know exactly who all was and is part of the coverup. I don't know if there is more to the story then 'just' a fall behind the sofa. I don't know who came up with the coverup plan, and who got who on board. So there is still a lot I have no idea about

 

[fabgod]

Thanks. I don't think it was literally a last minute coverup. I am not exactly sure where you get the 30 minutes from but if you go through the witness reports that claim to have seen Madeleine that day then they are not all that convincing. Especially if (what I suspect) they faked Madeleine's creche attendance by simply signing the sheet then it is understandable that the nanny got all confused. I believe she claimed to have read stories to Madeleine but that actually happened the day before. Either way there are still hours that evening where something could have happened to Madeleine.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id28.html

This is where the speculation starts and I can understand there are different theories on when and how it happened. I personally suspect Madeleine died the night before and the coverup was a replay of what happened that night except this time they claimed an abduction and not that they found Madeleine behind the sofa. So rather a simple plan without thinking about the details as in through which door came who, how did the intruder enter, replacing the 2 toothbrushes that they used to clean up the blood, make sure Madeleine's bed actually looks like somebody slept in it, etc..

I think outside the McCanns and maybe a few of their friends nobody is covering up the death of Madeleine. Outside parties that have chosen their side might actually believe them, or don't really care and just choose their side for selfish (political?) reasons. They not necessarily know that the parents were involved in the death of their child.

So I don't know exactly who all was and is part of the coverup. I don't know if there is more to the story then 'just' a fall behind the sofa. I don't know who came up with the coverup plan, and who got who on board. So there is still a lot I have no idea about

The reason I came up with 30 minutes is just from taking what seems the Pj train of thought and that Madeleine was last seen around 5.30pm.
My 30 minutes in particular is from taking the timeline for the purposes of proving if Jane Tanners sighting could have happened, which to my mind and findings on the timeline they presented, was close to impossible imo.

I take your point about it happening the night earlier, the nannies statements again, like everything else, seem odd, at odds with other statements etc.
I was particularly surprised to read that one of the Nannies claimed to have been on scene within 5 minutes, she also alluded to the twins not being present.

I wouldnt be surprised whatever the outcome (if there is one that is), the more i read, the more worrying it becomes.
Thanks for your input, its good to actually have something to consider for a change!

 

[BritsKate]

I think even if you believe Maddie was at the creche until 17:30 it still allows at least 3 hours, and possibly 5, in which a crime could be committed and concealed. This isn't impossible to my logic. (I'm obviously discounting Payne's account as he didn't mention seeing Maddie at 18:30 in his first interview when presumably the details would be fresher.)

I'm not of the mind this is a grand conspiracy either - in fact, I rather think Payne himself nailed it when he stated in his interview that "so as I say I'm afraid one day does blur into another, I can't really recall specifics".

 

[fabgod]

I think even if you believe Maddie was at the creche until 17:30 it still allows at least 3 hours, and possibly 5, in which a crime could be committed and concealed. This isn't impossible to my logic. (I'm obviously discounting Payne's account as he didn't mention seeing Maddie at 18:30 in his first interview when presumably the details would be fresher.)

I'm not of the mind this is a grand conspiracy either - in fact, I rather think Payne himself nailed it when he stated in his interview that "so as I say I'm afraid one day does blur into another, I can't really recall specifics".

Agreed Britskate,
There was plenty of time for an abductor to have taken Madeleine but for whatever reason it is almost shoehorned by the parties involved into that 8.45 to 9.10 ish timeframe.
At that time it really doesnt work, with all the late comers arriving others off to do checks, Jeremy Wilkins in the area.

If a crime was committed and/or a cover up, It would still be a massive undertaking in the available time wouldnt it?

 

[brit1981]

I don't buy into any of the McCann propaganda. I hope SY will take their job seriously, but by specifying that Madeleine is still alive before even concluding the review then I am not very hopefull. Will they review/re-test the DNA evidence? It is 2012 now, a little mixed DNA sample shouldn't stop them from specifying what exactly the chances are that 15 markers of Madeleine's DNA were found. Review the dog alerts, interview witnesses, really interrogate the McCann's please, lie detector tests if possible, do a thorough reconstruction, etc. What exactly is the SY doing at the moment besides chasing Madeleine sightings all over the world?

The Portuguese were pressured to drop the case against the McCanns. The McCanns let them close it and I doubt they will ever ask them to reopen it. It is much safer to ask their own SY. Some day hopefully their arrogance will bite them in the foot. There must be serious investigators working at SY who don't buy into the propaganda. Hoping to be surprised one day but until then I don't really expect this case ever to be solved.

First of all the chances of there being all nineteen different markers of Madeleine's, let alone only fifteen, are incredibly high due tot he fact her parents, grandparents, siblings and other relatives used the car where the markers were found. 100% of madeleine's components are present in the DNA of both parents, and all four of her grandparents, and many would also be present in the DNA of her siblings and other relatives. Some will even be present in strangers. The idea that finding fifteen (or even all nineteen)components that madeleine shared is somehow an implication that it is likely hers is just down to ignorance about genetic inheritance. But if it wa spossible to examine the DNA again (and it could well be the amount is too small to go over again) it would be good to see if the profiles could be extracted.

No evidence has ever come to light that the Portuguese were pressured to drop the case. The McCanns have publicly asked for it to be reopened, whilst at the same time they pressured the british police to investigate the case.

I really do not think scotland yard should be expected to share details of their ongoing investigation with the public. Redwood came out over a year into their investigation and said that from looking at the evidence, which included nearly two hundred leads which had not been followed up, they believed madeleine was taking by a stranger in a cirminal act, but that they also believed that there was a possibility she was still alive. At no point did he state their investigation consisted of only looking at sightings, not have they said that their review of the case does not include reviewing the evidence such as the DNA.

Lie detector tests are not done in the Uk. they are being introduced to convicted sex offenders, but not in ongoing investigations. At present lie detectors are currently only a part of chav tv.

The abductions does fit into the time between Gerry leaving and jane's sighting, but at the same time it would fit into any few minute window between then and ten. Nothing has happened to either discount, or confirm the sighting. It could always be some innocent man who did not want to get caught up in it, and his name spread all over the internet. I think we always see odd things, but unless something else significant happens we forget them. In all probablity tanner's sighting would have not been remembered by her for long apart from the fact less than an hour later madeleine was found missing. Things do gain significance in hindsight.

 

[fabgod]

Just been reading Martin Grimes who as you will all know was in charge of the dogs that have been pilloried in certain quarters,
In his rogatory statement he comments that not all of the dogs alerts were investigated by the relevant agencies, wonder if there are samples that were taken of these alerts that were not sent to the FSS.

I read recently in the letter detailing the FSS findings to the PJ that the samples sent for testing would be destroyed subject to British law,

Also from the Martin Grimes rogatory, he states that Cuddle cat was retained by the PJ.

Martin Grimes also states that Gerry McCann wrote to Mr Grimes Head supervisor at the time, I bet that was to compliment the dogs on their sterling work!

Apparently, the UK police asked Martin Grime not to comment on the McCann case, understandable I suppose in that it was/is/might be an ongoing case, my point with regard to posting this is that I am impressed at the measure of professionalism he has shown in the face of such unmerited criticism.

This leads me onto (thankfully) my last comment, the criticism levelled at Martin Grimes and his Dogs, whilst being shameful and spiteful against a person simply doing his job is this,
the dogs didnt get anything wrong at all, the dogs alerted and at every alert, there was matter, blood, substance or should I say evidence that could be and in some cases was tested.
The narrow minded and misguided people that continue to spout that the dogs were wrong, should take a reality check,
The dogs did their job, they alerted and were vindicated that the samples were taken and tested, neither the dogs or Martin Grime ever stated who or what the alerts were from.
point made!

 

[SapphireSteel]

I do not think using the front page of a colouring book signifies anything other than people needed something to write on quickly and it was the first thing that came to hand. They were on holiday, how many of them brought writing material with them.

Also we have no idea when that particular time line was written or when the bit about Tanner's sighting was added, that could easily have been written down after the initial timeline when Jane had told the police what she had seen.
As for eddie, firstly he is not the world's top sniffer dog, according to south yorkshire police he was not even the most successfully dog there. But more importanly he was not a cadaver dog. No cadaver dog was used in the mccann search. he was a recovery dog, and was trained to alert to bodily fluids as well as decomposure. he cannot tell people what he is alerting to, so without an actual body it is equally possible he was alerting to bodily fluids. Grimes states that he will alert to bodily fluids in his report to the PJ (it has been posted on the cadaver dog thread). Plus there is the fact that dogs in the Uk, including Eddie, have made mistakes when searching. And yes it is an embarressing truth eddie alerted to coconut. It is also true that according to south yorkshire police eddie only have found one body when searching on his own, out of about seventeen cases. the claims of him being the world's top dog are baseless and have not been confirmed by anyone. But if we make the assumption Eddie was correct because he according to Grimes alerts to bodily fluids his alerts mean nothing if he does nto actually recover a victim.

I think we have to remember that the PJ have said there was no evidence to suspect the parents, the PJ have said the parents were not involved, and Scotland yard have said it was a stranger abduction, and that they have seen more information than we have. I really cannnot see how people on the internet with no experience of criminal investigations, and no access to all the information can claim to know more than Scotland yard.

As for jane Tanner being involved in a cover-up, when and why was she asked to do this? if she did nto leave the table why is everyone at the table saying she did? If david payne is lying about seeing madeleine, why and when was he asked to lie, and is everyone who saw him leave the tennis courts also covering up?

Please post a link, I've never read this?

Tia.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Just been reading Martin Grimes who as you will all know was in charge of the dogs that have been pilloried in certain quarters,
In his rogatory statement he comments that not all of the dogs alerts were investigated by the relevant agencies, wonder if there are samples that were taken of these alerts that were not sent to the FSS.

I read recently in the letter detailing the FSS findings to the PJ that the samples sent for testing would be destroyed subject to British law,

Also from the Martin Grimes rogatory, he states that Cuddle cat was retained by the PJ.

Martin Grimes also states that Gerry McCann wrote to Mr Grimes Head supervisor at the time, I bet that was to compliment the dogs on their sterling work!

Apparently, the UK police asked Martin Grime not to comment on the McCann case, understandable I suppose in that it was/is/might be an ongoing case, my point with regard to posting this is that I am impressed at the measure of professionalism he has shown in the face of such unmerited criticism.

This leads me onto (thankfully) my last comment, the criticism levelled at Martin Grimes and his Dogs, whilst being shameful and spiteful against a person simply doing his job is this,
the dogs didnt get anything wrong at all, the dogs alerted and at every alert, there was matter, blood, substance or should I say evidence that could be and in some cases was tested.
The narrow minded and misguided people that continue to spout that the dogs were wrong, should take a reality check,
The dogs did their job, they alerted and were vindicated that the samples were taken and tested, neither the dogs or Martin Grime ever stated who or what the alerts were from.
point made!

:goodpost: