Again I get this but how can it be said that the dogs are almost 100% right. Without forensic evidence to prove it you've no idea what they are barking at, Given how sensitive these dogs are supposed to be there must be cadaver scent all over the place. My Mum died in the lounge of my parents house & it was about at least 3 hours until the GP had certified death & the undertaker came to pick her up. The bed is now with my brother at his home. Hope he never gets suspected of foul play!
And in that instance the dogs would bark, and there could be an explanation given for it.
I have a recollection that in the Shannon Matthews case a similar thing happened although memory hazy
In the case of the McCann holiday let, it was established that no one had passed away there, to that date.
They should be called the Mc CANT's as so called Doctors who are supposibly be able to tend to people, they can't even care for their own children.:mad:
I do know people who would turn to their priest immediately in any crisis. My mum is one, my mum-in-law is another. Even people who wouldn't be considered devout catholics may turn to their priest in all sorts of situations. Once a catholic, always a catholic.... etc.
I get that as well. It wouldn't be my reaction but my Dad family particularly the older generations would immediately want to talk to a Minister.
It's quite frightening though isn't is that a mattress could find itself somewhere & nobody knows that it has been in contact with cadaver.
Fact is these dogs in Portugal barking proves nothing unless forensics can find proof of Madeleine body in the apartment.
As long as they are borne in mind as a piece of evidence that is awaiting either confirmation or dismissal rather than being summarily dismissed out of hand.
Results in flat 5A (Where the family were staying)
- cadaver odour dog:
* in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the lateral window of the apartment
- cadaver odour dog:
* in the couple's bedroom, in a corner, close to the wardrobe
- cadaver odour dog:
* in a flowerbed, the dog handler commented on the lightness of the scent detected
- blood dog:
* in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the lateral window of the apartment (exactly as it was signalled by the cadaver odour dog)
Vista Mar Villa, Rua das Flores, in which the McCanns lived from 02 July - 09 September 2007
- cadaver odour dog:
* on the soft toy, possibly belonging to MADELEINE (cadaver odour was detected when the soft toy was inside the residence – at the date occupied by the family)
- cadaver odour dog:
* on two pieces of clothing belonging to KATE HEALY
- cadaver odour dog:
* on a piece of clothing of the minor MADELEINE
The McCanns rental car (rented 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared)
- cadaver odour dog:
* signalled the key of the vehicle
- blood dog:
* signalled the key of the vehicle
- blood dog:
* signalled the interior of the vehicle's boot
- cadaver odour dog:
* base of the driver's door
No scents were detected in any of the other 4 apartments, the Murats villa or belongings inside them or the 9 other cars also checked or the open areas that were examined. Forensic evidence was recovered from the areas the blood dog indicated but was not conclusive.
Cadaver scent does not mean forensic evidence will be found. If the body is wrapped in something for example. Presumably someone would do this if they were moving a body to avoid the leaving of forensic evidence if they were going to attempt to cover up a crime.
I agree, it would be interesting if anyone knows if those statistics exist.
Wasn't one of the major discrepancies in the case against the McAnns the fact that this rented car wasn't hired until weeks after Maddie disappeared?
Gosh, have you lot not hanged, drawn and quartered the McCann's yet? Surely being middle class must qualify them, even if nothing else does. Nice to know there are so many perfect parents on this thread - or is the truth that the McCann's have struck a chord? Nasty minded people.
There was absolutely nothing unreasonable about jokenballs comment. It is more one that is reflective of our society and its attitudes. Your sly dig is rather disingenuous.
I do know people who would turn to their priest immediately in any crisis. My mum is one, my mum-in-law is another. Even people who wouldn't be considered devout catholics may turn to their priest in all sorts of situations. Once a catholic, always a catholic.... etc.
I appreciate hearing points of view such as yours but I find it impossible to understand why they weren't out scouring the streets from the moment of realisation. Surely the panic of your missing child would override picking up your phone?
To the UK? And afterwards to delete your calls on the mobiles that their PR Clarence Mitchell said that none of them brought with them that night. Neither were any of them wearing watches that night according to him.
Wasn't one of the major discrepancies in the case against the McAnns the fact that this rented car wasn't hired until weeks after Maddie disappeared?
That just shows to me how deeply flawed that part of the investigation was, because I don't think there's any other evidence to suggest that the McCanns were toting Madeleine's body around a couple of weeks after she disappeared. Also, I would imagine that far too many people would have been around them at that time and so it's hard to believe that anyone could take this theory seriously.
The McCanns were closely followed by the media for weeks after the disappearance - it would have been impossible for them to be carrying a body around and disposing of it (not to mention the condition the body would be in).If that were the case - and there is absolutely no evidence to that effect - it would have had to be done before the alarm was raised.
I do know people who would turn to their priest immediately in any crisis. My mum is one, my mum-in-law is another. Even people who wouldn't be considered devout catholics may turn to their priest in all sorts of situations. Once a catholic, always a catholic.... etc.
That just shows to me how deeply flawed that part of the investigation was, because I don't think there's any other evidence to suggest that the McCanns were toting Madeleine's body around a couple of weeks after she disappeared. Also, I would imagine that far too many people would have been around them at that time and so it's hard to believe that anyone could take this theory seriously.
It doesn't have to mean an actual body was there though, just something that a body had been in contact with long enough for the scent to transfer and remain present.
Carter -Ruck are very powerful they are a force mainly used by celebrities and high profile people. makes you think how they can afford them doesnt it?, oh maybe the fund people donated to helps just a thought....
Because the Media, TV companies being especially spineless, are terrified of slandering or libelling people like the McCanns.
No, Because they are doing their job, protecting their clients
Thanks, but what if the clients are less than savoury? Would they still represent them for money?
Reading various topics on the internet a lot of people have said that on his blog, Gerry posted that he replaced the fridge in the apartment because it was broken, then rapidly deleted that entry. Is there any truth in this?
The McCanns were closely followed by the media for weeks after the disappearance - it would have been impossible for them to be carrying a body around and disposing of it (not to mention the condition the body would be in).If that were the case - and there is absolutely no evidence to that effect - it would have had to be done before the alarm was raised.
not true, they actually asked for privacy when they rented the villa and the media agreed. They went out as a family for the day and there wereabouts at the time were unknown.
Gerry took a new fridge to be scrapped because it was "broken" and went to buy a new one for the rented villa and didn't tell the landlady. question is why??
Also martin brunt on sky news reported that gerrys tennis bag was reported stolen the same day maddie went missing but martin brunt/mccanns now deny reporting and owning a blue tennis bag.
It doesn't have to mean an actual body was there though, just something that a body had been in contact with long enough for the scent to transfer and remain present.
Then we are back to when would they have had time enough to dispose of a body beforehand and in such a short space of time with all those friends and other holiday people milling around. If indeed they managed to evade all that then I doubt they could have gone far and so wouldn't it have been more likely to have been found, as I doubt the McCanns know the area well enough to hide a body that well? Either way, it's too far fetched, IMO.
Also, where is this info about what the dogs found coming from and has it been confirmed by the British police? With regards to the dog handler, I think he once said that cross contamination can be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
Reading various topics on the internet a lot of people have said that on his blog, Gerry posted that he replaced the fridge in the apartment because it was broken, then rapidly deleted that entry. Is there any truth in this?
I think that falls in to 'forum myth'. There are people who say they saw the blog entry, which was quickly removed but there is nothing like a screen caputre or link or anything to back it up as far as I know.
not true, they actually asked for privacy when they rented the villa and the media agreed. They went out as a family for the day and there wereabouts at the time were unknown.
Gerry took a new fridge to be scrapped because it was "broken" and went to buy a new one for the rented villa and didn't tell the landlady. question is why??
Also martin brunt on sky news reported that gerrys tennis bag was reported stolen the same day maddie went missing but martin brunt/mccanns now deny reporting and owning a blue tennis bag.
Brunt denies he said that?I wonder if any footage remains of him saying that, why would he deny he said it? some of us saw and heard it. Didnt he also allegedly lose his wallet(GM)?
Then we are back to when would they have had time enough to dispose of a body beforehand and in such a short space of time with all those friends and other holiday people milling around. If indeed they managed to evade all that then I doubt they could have gone far and so wouldn't it have been more likely to have been found, as I doubt the McCanns know the area well enough to hide a body that well? Either way, it's too far fetched, IMO.
Also, where is this info about what the dogs found coming from and has it been confirmed by the British police? With regards to the dog handler, I think he once said that cross contamination can be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
I really do not know. I have fortunately never been in the position of having a body to remove, so I cannot say how I would/wouldn't react.
The only point I was trying to make was that an alert does not mean it was necessarily from the primary source.
Of course the evidence needs to be corroborated, I don't think anyone disputes that at all - my own opinion (which isn't worth that much anyway in the general scheme of things) is that it would be foolish to put all the dog alerts to one side with a 'forget them, they don't count, there's nothing to back them up'.
The dogs did alert. For whatever reason. It just needs to be kept in mind and held unless - or until - the reason for the alerts is known;. Without knowing why the dogs alerted, then the alerts are neither right nor wrong. They just are.
I remember seeing a post on one of the threads that has gone to the Great Thread House in the Sky saying that imagine that you were about to get on a plane and the bomb sniffer dog alerted, but a bomb could not be found. Would you still get on the plane without a care in the world?
I think that falls in to 'forum myth'. There are people who say they saw the blog entry, which was quickly removed but there is nothing like a screen caputre or link or anything to back it up as far as I know.
Ok, thank you.
Sounded a bit suspect, that would be a real 'smoking gun.'
I'm somebody who saw that blog entry. It's not a myth - but frustratingly, there is no screen capture so no proof. I also saw a picture of Gerry with a suitcase which has also disappeared.
I think that falls in to 'forum myth'. There are people who say they saw the blog entry, which was quickly removed but there is nothing like a screen caputre or link or anything to back it up as far as I know.
Fact and fiction do usually start to get mixed up in such high-profile cases, and that's probably one of the reasons why public discussions are frowned upon. It doesn't help, either, that the media are sometimes prone to misreporting.
There is what is alleged to be ''new evidence'' in the Sun and Sunday Express today (and probably other papers as well). It seems some of the hacks have had another trip to Portugal.
Fact is these dogs in Portugal barking proves nothing unless forensics can find proof of Madeleine body in the apartment.
It seems to suggest that there was a dead body in the apartment. There have never been any reports of anyone dying there - yet a toddler has vanished from there without a trace.
I don't believe Madeleine was abducted alive by a stranger.
It seems to suggest that there was a dead body in the apartment. There have never been any reports of anyone dying there -
the problem is it potentially suggests a large number of other scenarios. that someone lost a milk tooth there. that a centuries old bone fragment may be 10 foot down under the foundations. that no body was ever there, but something that had been in contact with a body or near one might have been there. at any point in the last 200 years.
I'm somebody who saw that blog entry. It's not a myth - but frustratingly, there is no screen capture so no proof. I also saw a picture of Gerry with a suitcase which has also disappeared.
Comments
And in that instance the dogs would bark, and there could be an explanation given for it.
I have a recollection that in the Shannon Matthews case a similar thing happened although memory hazy
In the case of the McCann holiday let, it was established that no one had passed away there, to that date.
I get that as well. It wouldn't be my reaction but my Dad family particularly the older generations would immediately want to talk to a Minister.
It's quite frightening though isn't is that a mattress could find itself somewhere & nobody knows that it has been in contact with cadaver.
Fact is these dogs in Portugal barking proves nothing unless forensics can find proof of Madeleine body in the apartment.
As long as they are borne in mind as a piece of evidence that is awaiting either confirmation or dismissal rather than being summarily dismissed out of hand.
(always have a new mattress would be my tip)
Wasn't one of the major discrepancies in the case against the McAnns the fact that this rented car wasn't hired until weeks after Maddie disappeared?
There was absolutely nothing unreasonable about jokenballs comment. It is more one that is reflective of our society and its attitudes. Your sly dig is rather disingenuous.
I appreciate hearing points of view such as yours but I find it impossible to understand why they weren't out scouring the streets from the moment of realisation. Surely the panic of your missing child would override picking up your phone?
To the UK? And afterwards to delete your calls on the mobiles that their PR Clarence Mitchell said that none of them brought with them that night. Neither were any of them wearing watches that night according to him.
How do their timelines add up then?
That just shows to me how deeply flawed that part of the investigation was, because I don't think there's any other evidence to suggest that the McCanns were toting Madeleine's body around a couple of weeks after she disappeared. Also, I would imagine that far too many people would have been around them at that time and so it's hard to believe that anyone could take this theory seriously.
Ttttttttt
It doesn't have to mean an actual body was there though, just something that a body had been in contact with long enough for the scent to transfer and remain present.
Thanks, but what if the clients are less than savoury? Would they still represent them for money?
Reading various topics on the internet a lot of people have said that on his blog, Gerry posted that he replaced the fridge in the apartment because it was broken, then rapidly deleted that entry. Is there any truth in this?
not true, they actually asked for privacy when they rented the villa and the media agreed. They went out as a family for the day and there wereabouts at the time were unknown.
Gerry took a new fridge to be scrapped because it was "broken" and went to buy a new one for the rented villa and didn't tell the landlady. question is why??
Also martin brunt on sky news reported that gerrys tennis bag was reported stolen the same day maddie went missing but martin brunt/mccanns now deny reporting and owning a blue tennis bag.
Then we are back to when would they have had time enough to dispose of a body beforehand and in such a short space of time with all those friends and other holiday people milling around. If indeed they managed to evade all that then I doubt they could have gone far and so wouldn't it have been more likely to have been found, as I doubt the McCanns know the area well enough to hide a body that well? Either way, it's too far fetched, IMO.
Also, where is this info about what the dogs found coming from and has it been confirmed by the British police? With regards to the dog handler, I think he once said that cross contamination can be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
I think that falls in to 'forum myth'. There are people who say they saw the blog entry, which was quickly removed but there is nothing like a screen caputre or link or anything to back it up as far as I know.
Brunt denies he said that?I wonder if any footage remains of him saying that, why would he deny he said it? some of us saw and heard it. Didnt he also allegedly lose his wallet(GM)?
I really do not know. I have fortunately never been in the position of having a body to remove, so I cannot say how I would/wouldn't react.
The only point I was trying to make was that an alert does not mean it was necessarily from the primary source.
Of course the evidence needs to be corroborated, I don't think anyone disputes that at all - my own opinion (which isn't worth that much anyway in the general scheme of things) is that it would be foolish to put all the dog alerts to one side with a 'forget them, they don't count, there's nothing to back them up'.
The dogs did alert. For whatever reason. It just needs to be kept in mind and held unless - or until - the reason for the alerts is known;. Without knowing why the dogs alerted, then the alerts are neither right nor wrong. They just are.
I remember seeing a post on one of the threads that has gone to the Great Thread House in the Sky saying that imagine that you were about to get on a plane and the bomb sniffer dog alerted, but a bomb could not be found. Would you still get on the plane without a care in the world?
Ok, thank you.
Sounded a bit suspect, that would be a real 'smoking gun.'
Fact and fiction do usually start to get mixed up in such high-profile cases, and that's probably one of the reasons why public discussions are frowned upon. It doesn't help, either, that the media are sometimes prone to misreporting.
It seems to suggest that there was a dead body in the apartment. There have never been any reports of anyone dying there - yet a toddler has vanished from there without a trace.
I don't believe Madeleine was abducted alive by a stranger.
the problem is it potentially suggests a large number of other scenarios. that someone lost a milk tooth there. that a centuries old bone fragment may be 10 foot down under the foundations. that no body was ever there, but something that had been in contact with a body or near one might have been there. at any point in the last 200 years.
these are the claims being made for the dogs.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/screenshots/SCREENSHOTS.htm
Don't know if any of the entries have been removed.