"Who would leave children that young alone?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #881
Sorry. I think they were bat crap nuts for leaving her in that room without adult supervision. But I don't believe Maddy died and her parents tried to cover it up. I think it's an unfortunate example and reminder to us to hold our kids close because you never know what sickos are out there prowling...
 
  • #882
The biggest issue I see with dogs in this case is that it is a rental car and a hotel room. So anything that they hit on that could be just old decomposed blood or tissue from someone would not be directly linked to maddie.

I just see too much that negates the dogs here.

The hotel room, the car, moms clothing, her stuffed toy... That's a lot of hits by two different HRD dogs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
  • #883
The hotel room, the car, moms clothing, her stuffed toy... That's a lot of hits by two different HRD dogs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Stuffed toys?

That's not good.

Can menstruation residue on undergarments read as cadaver fluids to a cadaver dog or are they trained to know the difference?

Those dogs are amazing.
 
  • #884
The hotel room, the car, moms clothing, her stuffed toy... That's a lot of hits by two different HRD dogs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I don't trust the dogs so much. I just don't. especially after watching that video.
 
  • #885
I don't see the bias. She said she saw the man as soon as she found out Maddie was missing. She has not recanted.

I don't see her as being biased either. I do see a problem if Jane tries to identify the suspect in court but her description of a child, dressed as Madeleine was, being taken away remains strong and powerful evidence to me.
 
  • #886
I don't think that is necessarily true. Most abductors have a type or lock on someone. Look at Elizabeth Smart. He could have taken both girls. But only took Elizabeth.

A recent case on HLN also two young girls out playing and he has the opportunity to grab one but waits for the other..

I believe that most likely he was watching and waiting to have his chance.

Right, but he knew them. And it's much easier to take one girl (and was the sister much younger? I don't remember, but he may not have liked them quite that young). By crime of opportunity, I don't mean he literally just looked into a hotel room randomly and stumbled onto a child. But maybe he was in the area and heard the parents discussing how they were leaving the kids, and had noticed her earlier.

By planned abduction, I think of someone who trolls these resorts looking for kids and the perfect time to snatch them. Where are the other victims or suspicious reports, and even if this was his first time, I've never heard of a pedophile being that obvious as to keep hiding nearby until he thinks a child he spotted might be left alone. Even if he has a type, it makes much more sense to walk around looking for an unattended child running around unsupervised and slowly lead he or she away than it does to stalk the hotel at night and wait for a door to be left unlocked with unattended children. If he observed their parenting style as opportunistically lax, presumably he had other opportunities. It's a leap to say he noticed they weren't super attentive and thus knew to hide around the hotel room.

This perp may have gleaned all he needed to know about the character of Maddy's parents and their parenting style by simply watching their behavior at the beach and around the resort. These criminals are predators. They smell prey and stalk it just long enough to learn its movements/habits and then pounce as soon as they get the opportunity.

So I believe she was abducted by a child predator who was rather proficient in stalking and consequentially abducting.

I just think it would be hard for someone to have gotten away with this at a resort full of foreigners on a regular basis. Crime of opportunity with an experienced child molester from somewhere else also vacationing, who hears the McCanns talking about leaving and saw their little girl earlier, and just can't help himself? Perhaps. But I can't see going to that place to stalk children - foreigners, and wealthier people, are going to attract too much attention. Skilled child molesters typically know their victims well, or luck out on spotting an unsupervised child that they can't resist while driving along. They rarely stalk places and grab children the moment their parents turn their backs. Too risky.
 
  • #887
The hotel room, the car, moms clothing, her stuffed toy... That's a lot of hits by two different HRD dogs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

The dogs where handled by one handler right? Martin Grime? Independent dog teams is the right way to do it. Not just one guy.
 
  • #888
Right, but he knew them. And it's much easier to take one girl (and was the sister much younger? I don't remember, but he may not have liked them quite that young). By crime of opportunity, I don't mean he literally just looked into a hotel room randomly and stumbled onto a child. But maybe he was in the area and heard the parents discussing how they were leaving the kids, and had noticed her earlier.

By planned abduction, I think of someone who trolls these resorts looking for kids and the perfect time to snatch them. Where are the other victims or suspicious reports, and even if this was his first time, I've never heard of a pedophile being that obvious as to keep hiding nearby until he thinks a child he spotted might be left alone. Even if he has a type, it makes much more sense to walk around looking for an unattended child running around unsupervised and slowly lead he or she away than it does to stalk the hotel at night and wait for a door to be left unlocked with unattended children. If he observed their parenting style as opportunistically lax, presumably he had other opportunities. It's a leap to say he noticed they weren't super attentive and thus knew to hide around the hotel room.



I just think it would be hard for someone to have gotten away with this at a resort full of foreigners on a regular basis. Crime of opportunity with an experienced child molester from somewhere else also vacationing, who hears the McCanns talking about leaving and saw their little girl earlier, and just can't help himself? Perhaps. But I can't see going to that place to stalk children - foreigners, and wealthier people, are going to attract too much attention. Skilled child molesters typically know their victims well, or luck out on spotting an unsupervised child that they can't resist while driving along. They rarely stalk places and grab children the moment their parents turn their backs. Too risky.


Not if they are a local or someone who looked like the vacationers.

Child molesters do it because they need to. The can not control it. Many of them show very risky behavior in getting their prey.
 
  • #889
Right, but he knew them. And it's much easier to take one girl (and was the sister much younger? I don't remember, but he may not have liked them quite that young). By crime of opportunity, I don't mean he literally just looked into a hotel room randomly and stumbled onto a child. But maybe he was in the area and heard the parents discussing how they were leaving the kids, and had noticed her earlier.

By planned abduction, I think of someone who trolls these resorts looking for kids and the perfect time to snatch them. Where are the other victims or suspicious reports, and even if this was his first time, I've never heard of a pedophile being that obvious as to keep hiding nearby until he thinks a child he spotted might be left alone. Even if he has a type, it makes much more sense to walk around looking for an unattended child running around unsupervised and slowly lead he or she away than it does to stalk the hotel at night and wait for a door to be left unlocked with unattended children. If he observed their parenting style as opportunistically lax, presumably he had other opportunities. It's a leap to say he noticed they weren't super attentive and thus knew to hide around the hotel room.



I just think it would be hard for someone to have gotten away with this at a resort full of foreigners on a regular basis. Crime of opportunity with an experienced child molester from somewhere else also vacationing, who hears the McCanns talking about leaving and saw their little girl earlier, and just can't help himself? Perhaps. But I can't see going to that place to stalk children - foreigners, and wealthier people, are going to attract too much attention. Skilled child molesters typically know their victims well, or luck out on spotting an unsupervised child that they can't resist while driving along. They rarely stalk places and grab children the moment their parents turn their backs. Too risky.

You said something very important here:

It was an international resort. This makes the likelihood of abducting a child from a foreign country much more accessible - and if that child is from another country, then it makes the child all the more simple to traffic as they will have no legal identification in the country they are relocated to and are less likely to be spotted and rescued.

That's why I believe she was taken and put into a child trafficking ring. And that's the probable scenario I think LE around the world is looking at now in regard to finding her.
 
  • #890
Stuffed toys?

That's not good.

Can menstruation residue on undergarments read as cadaver fluids to a cadaver dog or are they trained to know the difference?

Those dogs are amazing.

From what I've heard the answer is no from some and a maybe from others. Nothing that I can link will help answer that question either.

In my opinion, if decomposing human blood can be used to train a HRD dog then anything with a trace of old human blood on it should cause them to alert. And when I say a trace we're talking about invisible to the naked eye. MOO.
 
  • #891
IDI? What's this?

And I certainly don't think the McCann's were perfect. I don't think anyone here has even remotely asserted this.
 
  • #892
  • #893
I don't trust the dogs so much. I just don't. especially after watching that video.

I would.

The were used in a case not far from me. A missing farmers wife. The dogs indicated death in the sitting room. There was never a body found, and the guy got away with it.

Then he confessed to strangling her in the sitting room and dumping her body.

The dogs were right all along......

The fact remains, its not so much the dogs might be wrong it was the reaction by the parents to the findings...IF I had been there I would have wanted to know why the dogs indicated......and would have asked for more forensics.

For all we know she was harmed in the apartment by the abductor....

NO dont dismiss the dogs they are the best at their work...

The indicate death and blood but they cant actually say who it belongs to.
 
  • #894
I would.

The were used in a case not far from me. A missing farmers wife. The dogs indicated death in the sitting room. There was never a body found, and the guy got away with it.

Then he confessed to strangling her in the sitting room and dumping her body.

The dogs were right all along......

The fact remains, its not so much the dogs might be wrong it was the reaction by the parents to the findings...IF I had been there I would have wanted to know why the dogs indicated......and would have asked for more forensics.

For all we know she was harmed in the apartment by the abductor....

NO dont dismiss the dogs they are the best at their work...

The indicate death and blood but they cant actually say who it belongs to.

No one ever died in that room or in that car


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
  • #895
No one ever died in that room or in that car


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

And you know this how? Do you have a link? Not being snarky, just curious?
 
  • #896
And you know this how? Do you have a link? Not being snarky, just curious?

Not handy.

There are a few links. I found and read when googling her name, hotel room and dogs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
  • #897
Seriously. They put a plan into practice that all of the parents were in agreement with. They took turns checking on the kids.
Them wanting to eat alone and have some drinks means nothing as it pertains to the case. IT only proves they are normal adults. Their Child watching scheme is odd and yet they all thought it was okay..

What it means as pertains to this case is that they were negligent parents, so when Madeline died as a result of either their drugging her to sleep or an accident such as falling down the stairs they needed to cover it up or be charged with a crime.

So, their wanting to eat and drink alone did have something pretty major to do with this case.

I don't care that their friends were also negligent. I used to try that "my friend gets to do whatever" argument with my parents when I was 6. It didn't work then either.

It is one thing to argue whether or not people want to believe in this "abduction" which I clearly do not. But to argue that leaving 3 babies home alone is anything less than irresponsible is absurd. Even if you believe she really was abducted, that would not have happened if she had not been left unattended so her irresponsible parents could eat, drink and party with their friends.

There have been cases here in the US where people have left their child unattended because they had to go to work. You know, to buy their children food and shelter. At least there I can sympathize with the decision.

Leave your kids alone so you can party with adults? Sorry, no sympathy, none, nada.

Irrespohsible parents any way you cut it. The fact that people act like they are some kind of tragic hero's is nuts. Whatever happened to that child, they are responsible. Period.
 
  • #898
Not handy.

There are a few links. I found and read when googling her name, hotel room and dogs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

First of all this should HAVE to be backed up by a link.

Second, It does not matter, Biological matter that was left, Skin, blood also decompose and could produce a hit.
 
  • #899
What it means as pertains to this case is that they were negligent parents, so when Madeline died as a result of either their drugging her to sleep or an accident such as falling down the stairs they needed to cover it up or be charged with a crime.

So, their wanting to eat and drink alone did have something pretty major to do with this case.

I don't care that their friends were also negligent. I used to try that "my friend gets to do whatever" argument with my parents when I was 6. It didn't work then either.

It is one thing to argue whether or not people want to believe in this "abduction" which I clearly do not. But to argue that leaving 3 babies home alone is anything less than irresponsible is absurd. Even if you believe she really was abducted, that would not have happened if she had not been left unattended so her irresponsible parents could eat, drink and party with their friends.

There have been cases here in the US where people have left their child unattended because they had to go to work. You know, to buy their children food and shelter. At least there I can sympathize with the decision.

Leave your kids alone so you can party with adults? Sorry, no sympathy, none, nada.

Irrespohsible parents any way you cut it. The fact that people act like they are some kind of tragic hero's is nuts. Whatever happened to that child, they are responsible. Period.

There is no proof that Madeleine is even dead.

No one has to have sympathy for them for that. It is what it is, However it apparently was not anything they felt they had grounds to charge them with.
 
  • #900
First of all this should HAVE to be backed up by a link.

Second, It does not matter, Biological matter that was left, Skin, blood also decompose and could produce a hit.

Eddie, who has been called ‘the cadaver dog’, can detect the presence of human ‘cadaverine’, a special chemical released from a dead body, usually after the body has been dead for at least two hours (sometimes as short as an hour-and-a-half). It’s important to understand that Eddie is trained only to scent the presence of the special type of cadaverine released by a human corpse. The scent of death from animals is a different form of cadaverine. Keela is a dog trained specifically to detect the presence of blood. She is therefore what is popularly known as a ‘blood-hound’. She has been trained to ignore decomposing body materials other than human blood, freezing with her nose as near to the blood as possible without touching the item, to enable scientists to recover the sample quickly and efficiently. She can even pick out traces of blood after clothing or weapons have been washed many times; when Keela was working on the Abigail Witchalls case, she found eight pieces of blood-stained clothing in just one day.

Claims have been made by the McCanns and their team of legal and PR advisers about the alleged unreliability of cadaver dogs, including suggestions that they have on occasions mistaken pork for cadaver scent. But cadaver dogs have an excellent track record and have been used successfully in several murder trials. They are able to detect the smell of death up to dozens of feet below the surface and even after a body has lain there for years. Spectacular examples of their work can be viewed on many websites on the Internet. In addition, Mr Harrison and Mr Grime, who trained Eddie and Keela, patiently explained that the dogs had traced the ‘smell of death’ - human cadaverine - on around 200 previous occasions. They had never once been wrong.

An article in the Daily Telegraph gave us these details about the dogs:

http://www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm

So what did Mr Martin Grime’s cadaver dog and blood-hound find?

According to the official police summary report released in July this year - and confirmed by video evidence of the dogs in action in Praia da Luz, widely available on the Internet - Eddie, the cadaver dog, found the ‘smell of death’ in the following places. We quote the exact words of the report:

a) in the McCanns’ apartment, Apartment 5A, Eddie the cadaver the dog detected the scent of a human corpse (human cadaverine):

in the couple’s bedroom, in a corner, around a wardrobe, and
in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment.
Also, a ‘lighter’ scent of death was found in the flower beds in the back yard, near the foot of the steps leading down from the patio.

b) on family items of clothing, Eddie found the scent of a corpse as follows:

on two items of Kate McCann’s clothing, and
on one item of Madeleine’s clothing - a T-shirt.
c) in addition, Eddie the cadaver dog was taken to the house that the McCanns rented, in a different part of Praia da Luz, after they left Apartment 5A. Eddie found cadaverine on what was said to be Madeleine’s favourite pink soft toy, ‘Cuddle Cat’, which Dr Kate McCann always had with her when being interviewed by the media - but which Eddie detected lying in an otherwise empty cupboard. Here it should be noted that, earlier, Eddie had found Cuddle Cat in the living room at the McCanns’ rented home, tossed it in the air, but not actually ‘marked’ it by barking. He later marked it when the police re-located it in the cupboard.

d) on top of all that, Eddie, sniffing the car from the outside only, detected cadaverine in the car the McCanns hired on 22nd May, less than three weeks after Madeleine ‘disappeared’ - a Renault Scenic:

on the car key
around the door of the front driver’s seat.
These findings, supported by other forensic evidence, show that a dead body must have begun to emit cadaverine in Apartment 5A - the McCanns’ apartment. That body must have lain dead in that apartment for at least 90 minutes, probably two hours or more. Once that ‘smell of death’ - cadaverine - had begun to be produced, it could then be transferred to other locations such as the hire car, Madeleine’s clothes, Dr Kate McCann’s clothes and Cuddle Cat.

That means that a corpse - that must have been dead for approximately two hours (in order for cadaverine to have been produced) - must have been in direct contact with all of these locations - floor, wardrobe, car, clothes etc. If the body had subsequently been moved, it would still emit cadaverine as it was decomposing. Meanwhile, Keela, the blood-hound, found the smell of blood - note, blood, not just ‘body fluids’:

a) in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment (exactly where Eddie had found the scent of human cadaverine), and

b) in the McCanns’ hired Renault Scenic:

on the car key
in the interior of the car boot.
We should note three very important things here. The dogs alerted to the smell of death/blood, separately, in exactly the same places in the apartment. Eddie the cadaver dog only alerted to the smell of death to the McCanns’ apartment, out of all the other ones he was taken to.

Similarly, the McCanns’ car was the only one in the car compound that Eddie alerted to. Let us be very clear about where the dogs’ evidence takes us. Records have been checked by the Portuguese police, going back years. No-one else has ever died in Apartment 5A. No-one else has ever died in the Renault Scenic. There was a dead body in Apartment 5A. There was a dead body in the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns. That dead body could only be one individual - already dead - who could have been in both Apartment 5A and in the Renault Scenic. It must have been Madeleine McCann.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
3,704
Total visitors
3,798

Forum statistics

Threads
632,466
Messages
18,627,169
Members
243,162
Latest member
detroit_greene915
Back
Top