Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

LighterGuy

So whats boards users opinion on this?

they did it?
they didnt do it?

K-9

mconigol wrote: »

So you've absolutely no suggestions then? Money will just magically appear. It's not a charity, it's a privately funded company set up to continue the hunt for their daughter.

I find it odd that people would be more accepting if they had simply returned home and spent the rest of their lives feeling sorry for themselves rather than actually being proactive and trying to do something about it.

I say fair play to them if that's what it takes to raise the finances to continue their search. I sincerely hope that it all pays off for them some day. **** the bitter, twisted minority intent on daemonising them. Sad reflection on human beings imo.

I did suggest what to do? Why are you saying I've no suggestions?

The second point is ludicrous. Nobody is suggesting that.

Why do you have to be so dismissive on the third point? A paedophile is far more likely to be a family member or close family friend. The dogs suggested something and the detective pointed out other stuff.

Why so dismissive?

Einhard

opinion guy wrote: »

To be honest I've just been watching some videos of them and I think that the wife shows real genuine emotion and does not know what happened to her. But the husband strikes me as a guy in complete control. At the very least I think he knows what happened.

Monfoolio wrote: »

I never believed him to be honest, he comes across very "cold". That story always sticks in my mind, something else going on there

opinion guy wrote: »

To be perfectly honest he comes across as a sociopath to me. She strikes me as being under his spell/afraid of him.

This is exactly the kind of sentiment I was talking about earlier, when I said that people were rounding on the McCann's because they didn't conform to the expected norms of how grieving parents should react. Very few of us know what it is to lose a child, especially in such awful circumstances, and yet we come on here and condemn ithers because they don't act as we expect. The hsuband didn't break down in tears or wail in anguish, there fore he's "cold" and "in control", and therefore he must have somethign to hide. Did it never occur to people that he's utterly destroyed on the inside, but trying to hold it together on the surface. For his wife's sake? For the kid's sake? Did it never occur to people that, perhaps he's a naturally reserved man?

I know people who have been obviously devestated by the loss of loved ones. People who have found it hard to go on afterwarads, and on whom the pain is clearly etched. I know others though, who were back at work soon afterwards, and who could share a smile and a laugh at the funeral. Are we to believe that the latter is "cold", emotionless, or not as atatched to their deceased as the former? Or should accept the evidence that surrounds us everyday, that people react to grief in different ways? Of course not...the McCann's didn't react as expected, and therefore they must be guilty.

I have to say that the level of hatred displayed towards the two, the rationale behind it, and especially the ludicrous claims that they exploited the tragedy for gross financial gain is pretty shocking.

Were they negligent in their actiosn that night? Of course. Does it make them bad parents? Perhaps? Do they share in the responsibility for their daughter's disappearance. Yes, some of it. But do they deserve the level of vituperation levelled at them, and the horrendous allegations that they are motivated by mercenary motives, and fame? Definitely not, and the fact that they are subject to such hateful, and entirely unfounded abuse, is really quite disturbing.

Einhard

jimmynokia wrote: »

i know that what im saying is there would be no need for funding,have you asked yourself why is it not in the public eye?

Why isn't what in the public eye?

would you be thinking about or having time to sit down and write a book?

Why wouldn't they? The families of missing persons don't just stop living their lives after the disappearance. They can't. The world won't support them. They have to go back to work, and live their lives as best they can. Indeed, the McCanns went back to work some time after the disappearance. Why then wouldn't they have time to write a book?

people would gladly fund you if they thought it would help.

And people do contribute to the Maddie Fund, through direct donations, and through buying the book.

there is many ways to promote things than write books.

What exactly do you have against writing the book? And there are few better ways for individuals to raise money than writing a book, and publicising it.

IF you have the time too write a book something is wrong there

What? What exactly do you think the families of disappeared people do with their time? Why wouldn't they have the time to write a single book over a 5 year period?

K-9 wrote: »

By not writing their memoirs and seeking funds like any charity.

Charities often seek funds through publications. They want money for the Maddie Fund, in order to continue the search for their daughter. Publishing a book will ensure such funds. Problem solved. Am I missing something here? It seems people would rather they give up their daughter for dead, and the miniscule chance they have of finding her, because they don't like the look of them on tv or whatever.

jimmynokia

you make a good point. Im actually sitting here now having a row with my wife over this as our childs birthday co insides with this. As i stated i have no hate for them and can only imagine what they are going through years on with no closure it must be horrible and to be fair nobody here,i hope not,is in their position and we cant say what we can do to help retrieve a family member,in general the press fcuks up everything and decides what they think,after reading through this thread and seeing good and bad and indifferent opinions i honestly cant say what to do,i would be more intensive on searching every aspect possible so i could not say i would be giving thumbs up for writing a book,like i say people can take my view as good or bad,but nobody can actually say what the answer is unless they are in this situation and i hope they do find there baby as i think she is still alive after recent events,cant remember the names but the child that was missing for years and somebody had father children for them.i cant wait to see the interview next week it will be massive and be great for them,one thing im really worried about is the person interviewing them.once again i have no hatred for them and have genuine hope for them.

CoDy1

LighterGuy wrote: »

So whats boards users opinion on this?

they did it?
they didnt do it?

I believe the Mcanns sedated their child who subsequently died and tried to cover it up with an elaborate 'abduction' story.

The drugs prescribed rendering the body unsuitable for autopsy etc..

90% of the evidence points to this conclusion.

This quote kind off sums it up:

"Conclusions
"Madeleine died in the6 apartment 5 A on the 3rd of May of 2007
A simulation of kidnapping took place
Kate and Gerry are suspected of corpse's occultation [hiding the cadaver]
The death might have happened as a result of an accident
There are signs of negligence in the safe keeping and security of the children"

Its horrific to think that parents could do this but sadly not horrific enough to be completely ruled out.

Regardless of blame, Madeline was and is the person who suffered the most.

Animord

In how many other missing child investigations is the mother advised not to talk to the police when they are conducting their investigations, particularly initially? And if they are advised so, do they do it?

And if you were advised not to reveal the distinguising mark on the child, ie the eye abnormality, would you do it?

When the story first broke and that eye thing was made public, my first thought was that if the child was still alive they had pretty much made it impossible for the abductors to keep her alive.

I am quite prepared to believe, and hope very much, that the McCanns are totally innocent of everything that has been leveled at them and the reason that all this speculation is still rife is because the case was badly handled from start to finish - by everyone, the McCanns, their advisors, the police. But we are all here still speculating because much of it just doesn't seem to add up - whether this is as a result of stupid advice, bad reporting, missconceptions about how people handle themselves in such situations or whatever I don't know.

ISDW

I think people watch too much TV and then think that cases like this should be acted out the way they've seen it written by a script writer.

I knew a girl who's parents died, because she didn't cry at the funeral (she was 9), the relatives that initially took her in, decided that there was something really wrong with her, so she ended up in care instead. Thankfully she was fostered by a fantastic person, and even though she's in her mid 20s, she's still part of their family. But my point is, human beings are just that, human, and they can act irrationally at times of stress/grief, or their actions can be judged by other people as irrational.

Animord

ISDW wrote: »

I think people watch too much TV and then think that cases like this should be acted out the way they've seen it written by a script writer.

I knew a girl who's parents died, because she didn't cry at the funeral (she was 9), the relatives that initially took her in, decided that there was something really wrong with her, so she ended up in care instead. Thankfully she was fostered by a fantastic person, and even though she's in her mid 20s, she's still part of their family. But my point is, human beings are just that, human, and they can act irrationally at times of stress/grief, or their actions can be judged by other people as irrational.

I have myself had experience of a pretty horrible ending of an immediate family member, and have never cried publicly or been in any way emotional - I did my crying at home, alone. So I understand that completely and am sympathetic on that score.

We could do with a lot more compassion for other people's lot in life.

tigger123

mconigol wrote: »

Opinion =! evidence

Funny how there's so many people on here cynical about the Mc Canns supposedly cashing in on their daughters disapearance but are perfectly happy to believe the opinions of someone who is without a shadow of a doubt cashing in.

What story sells more books for Inspector Almeida:

Child vanishes, I failed to find anything conclusive OR

Parents kill their own daughter & hide the body while pulling the wool over the eyes of the entire world?

You can choose what to believe but I tend not to readily believe somebody trying to shift books off the shelves.

I completely agree with this.

Down through the years alot of authors on various subjects (such as the assassination of JFK, death of Marlyn Monroe, supposed "fake" moon landings, the Jesus Christ bloodline, 9/11 being an inside job etc etc) have always had something to gain (financially and otherwise) by publishing a more controversial version of events... it will sell more and garner more attention for the author.

IMO the McCanns did not kill their daughter, and the reason I believe this is that I've never seen or heard one shred of evidence to even suggest otherwise. Whether they are responsible through neglect is another argument altogether, but suggesting they murdered their own child, and the allegation being based on nothing is pretty distasteful.

Tipsy McSwagger

If they did kill her (which I don't believe) then what did they do with the body?

maebee

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/

PrincessLola

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why would anyone believe what this couple have to say? The story stinks.

Back in 1980 no one believed the Chamberlains that a dingo took their baby daughter either. The couple were subjected to the mob, baying for blood and were thrown in jail. Of course, they were exonerated after the baby's clothing was later found in a dingo lair, but the damage was done.

CK2010

I just hope that she is found, whether alive or not at this stage tbh, so that everyone, and most of all her parents, can have some closure. obviously everyone hopes she is found alive but if not i hope that one day she does get a dignified and proper resting place. its horrible to think she may have been just dumped somewhere. even worse if it was by her parents but i dont think i believe that. or maybe i just dont want to, i don't know.

dark crystal

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

If they did kill her (which I don't believe) then what did they do with the body?

Precisely.

Between the time they 'accidently' killed her (bear in mind, other people were checking on her periodically as well) and the time Kate called for help from the others and then the arrival of the police, we are supposed to believe she somehow managed to gather her thoughts quickly enough to dream up an elaborate plan to dispose of the poor mite's body?

Where was the grief and shock at finding her daughter dead? Or are we expected to believe she was completely nonplussed at the discovery of her daughter's corpse and her first thoughts were of how to get rid of the body in the short time it took to alert the police?

If so, where did she hide the body in an unfamiliar area, in a super secure hiding place, where she knew for certain the police wouldn't search?

Not only would this explaination make her a genius master criminal, it would also make her an out and out sociopath without any feelings at all for her dead daughter.

Does she strike any of you as either?

ISDW

I actually find it very disturbing that the madeleinefoundation thing exists. Why on earth are these people spending their time on this? If they are so concerned for child protection/safety etc, why aren't they working with children who need their help right now? How are they helping Madeleine at all? Handing out leaflets on the streets of Bristol (just one thing that I saw at a quick glance a that website). What is that going to do? How about going and working with disadvantaged, or at risk children in Bristol instead? Or are they too middle class to actually get their hands dirty?:rolleyes:

Allegations about the money being misspent etc, how on earth does it help when the McCanns and the fund then have to pay for law suits against these allegations?

People are very, very weird.

Animord

ISDW wrote: »

I actually find it very disturbing that the madeleinefoundation thing exists. Why on earth are these people spending their time on this? If they are so concerned for child protection/safety etc, why aren't they working with children who need their help right now? How are they helping Madeleine at all? Handing out leaflets on the streets of Bristol (just one thing that I saw at a quick glance a that website). What is that going to do? How about going and working with disadvantaged, or at risk children in Bristol instead? Or are they too middle class to actually get their hands dirty?:rolleyes:

Allegations about the money being misspent etc, how on earth does it help when the McCanns and the fund then have to pay for law suits against these allegations?

People are very, very weird.

The Madeleine Foundation are trying to change the law so that it will be completely illegal to allow a child of under 12 to be left alone. (They say.)

But look - more people in the frame...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384705/Madeleine-McCann-Police-quiz-convicted-murderers-Kate-McCann-gives-chilling-account-moment-daughter-missing.html

ISDW

Animord wrote: »

The Madeleine Foundation are trying to change the law so that it will be completely illegal to allow a child of under 12 to be left alone. (They say.)

But look - more people in the frame...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384705/Madeleine-McCann-Police-quiz-convicted-murderers-Kate-McCann-gives-chilling-account-moment-daughter-missing.html

Well, thats not a bad aim to have, but how would it help with this case anyway, as it took place in a foreign country, or are they aiming to change the laws worldwide?

Animord

ISDW wrote: »

Well, thats not a bad aim to have, but how would it help with this case anyway, as it took place in a foreign country, or are they aiming to change the laws worldwide?

From their website:-

In memory of Madeleine, therefore, we have adopted the slogan: “Madeleine’s Law: Never leave young children on their own”, in order that Madeleine’s disappearance may serve some positive purpose.
In early 2008, soon after we were formed, we proposed that, in tribute to her, it should be made a new criminal offence to leave children aged under 12 on their own, without reasonable excuse. Such a law exists in other countries and works well.
F. The petition calling for a change in the law to prevent people leaving young children on their own
Our Secretary, Tony Bennett, created a petition on the Prime Minister’s website calling on the Prime Minister to pass a new law making it a criminal offence to leave children under 12 on their own, without reasonable excuse. It ran from 9 February 2008 to 8 February 2009 and attracted 740 signatures, well above the 500 needed at the time to trigger a formal response from the Prime Minister.
This was the Prime Minister’s response:
“Government does not bring up children - parents do, and it is parents who are best placed to decide when their child or children may be left alone. Parents should consider not just the age of their children but wider issues of development, resilience and maturity.
“There is no statute that sets out a minimum age below which a child may be left alone. If anyone has concerns about the welfare of a child who is left alone, irrespective of their age, they should follow the standard procedures set out in Working Together to Safeguarding Children for making a referral to either the Local Authority children’s social care services or the police. These statutory agencies will then follow their normal processes for assessing whether the child is a child in need or at risk of suffering harm and deciding what action should be taken to safeguard the child’s welfare”.
It was a most disappointing response. But we shall continue to campaign on this issue.
There is evidence, sadly, that more and more young children are being left on their own to suit their parents’ convenience. It is clear to us that the existing law is not clear or tough enough.
G. Recent cases
Recent cases in the U.K. have included succcessful prosecutions in the U.K. for:

• leaving a child alone in a car for half-an-hour (London case), and
• leaving a nine-year-old child on his own while the parents went out drinking for the night (Norfolk case).

In 2005, Kelly Ann Rogerson received a six-month jail sentence, suspended for one year, after taking a two-week holiday in Turkey and leaving her three children with a teenage ‘babysitter’ (County Durham case).

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

Precisely.

Between the time they 'accidently' killed her (bear in mind, other people were checking on her periodically as well) and the time Kate called for help from the others and then the arrival of the police, we are supposed to believe she somehow managed to gather her thoughts quickly enough to dream up an elaborate plan to dispose of the poor mite's body?

Where was the grief and shock at finding her daughter dead? Or are we expected to believe she was completely nonplussed at the discovery of her daughter's corpse and her first thoughts were of how to get rid of the body in the short time it took to alert the police?

If so, where did she hide the body in an unfamiliar area, in a super secure hiding place, where she knew for certain the police wouldn't search?

Not only would this explaination make her a genius master criminal, it would also make her an out and out sociopath without any feelings at all for her dead daughter.

Does she strike any of you as either?

The same other people who gave statements to the police to say that they did not actually go into the room that the kid was in? That they just went back to the apartment and looked in the front door?


The same Father who said he went back to check, saw something that looked odd, think it was something that was moved either to or from a shelf the child could not have reached and that he never thought to check where the child was sleeping.


If the child had been killed accidently, it could have happened hours earlier, leaving plenty of time for a small body to be moved to a temporary location. Something that was hinted at when the cadaver dogs picked up the scent of a corpse in the McCann's car and also at the church that the mother went to when it happened.

The constant changing by their witnesses of how the person seen carrying a child looked is odd as well. First it was a white man, and they got the British guy as a suspect as they said it looked like him. Then it was a woman that they saw. Then it became a guy with sallow skin a moustache and greasy hair. And each time they were 100% on what they said they saw.

Throw in the claims that the shutters on the apartment were forced, which was proven false almost immediately.

Nah too many things kept changing and each time were presented as fact for me to believe anything other than a small child was taken from the world one way or another.

The only thing that will be interesting about the book is if some of the details and "facts" change again.

Kess73

Animord wrote: »

From their website:-

In memory of Madeleine, therefore, we have adopted the slogan: “Madeleine’s Law: Never leave young children on their own”, in order that Madeleine’s disappearance may serve some positive purpose.
In early 2008, soon after we were formed, we proposed that, in tribute to her, it should be made a new criminal offence to leave children aged under 12 on their own, without reasonable excuse. Such a law exists in other countries and works well.
F. The petition calling for a change in the law to prevent people leaving young children on their own
Our Secretary, Tony Bennett, created a petition on the Prime Minister’s website calling on the Prime Minister to pass a new law making it a criminal offence to leave children under 12 on their own, without reasonable excuse. It ran from 9 February 2008 to 8 February 2009 and attracted 740 signatures, well above the 500 needed at the time to trigger a formal response from the Prime Minister.
This was the Prime Minister’s response:
“Government does not bring up children - parents do, and it is parents who are best placed to decide when their child or children may be left alone. Parents should consider not just the age of their children but wider issues of development, resilience and maturity.
“There is no statute that sets out a minimum age below which a child may be left alone. If anyone has concerns about the welfare of a child who is left alone, irrespective of their age, they should follow the standard procedures set out in Working Together to Safeguarding Children for making a referral to either the Local Authority children’s social care services or the police. These statutory agencies will then follow their normal processes for assessing whether the child is a child in need or at risk of suffering harm and deciding what action should be taken to safeguard the child’s welfare”.
It was a most disappointing response. But we shall continue to campaign on this issue.
There is evidence, sadly, that more and more young children are being left on their own to suit their parents’ convenience. It is clear to us that the existing law is not clear or tough enough.
G. Recent cases
Recent cases in the U.K. have included succcessful prosecutions in the U.K. for:

• leaving a child alone in a car for half-an-hour (London case), and
• leaving a nine-year-old child on his own while the parents went out drinking for the night (Norfolk case).

In 2005, Kelly Ann Rogerson received a six-month jail sentence, suspended for one year, after taking a two-week holiday in Turkey and leaving her three children with a teenage ‘babysitter’ (County Durham case).

Yet the McCanns can leave three children alone with no attempt at a childminder, in a hotel that provided this service for guests, and no legal punishment comes.

maebee

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2416-let-me-help-you-gerry-david-payne-may-hold-the-key-to-the-mystery

amdublin

123balltv wrote: »

Could never understand their total lack of duty to their Babies
I know for a fact if my Mam and Dad :mad: ordinary Joe soaps
left my younger Brother who is only 4 years old alone especially with know
doors locked they'd be locked up in prison now.

Kate and Gerry McCann are ordinary Joe Soaps too

Animord

Kess73 wrote: »

Yet the McCanns can leave three children alone with no attempt at a childminder, in a hotel that provided this service for guests, and no legal punishment comes.

I can't speak for what the authorities choose to do, but they might think that leaving some kids alone in a room for a few hours in a place where they have no jurisdiction is different from leaving them for two weeks to go abroad.

Or maybe they think it would just be inhumane to subject them to the horror of prosecution for it, given what happened.

dark crystal

The same other people who gave statements to the police to say that they did not actually go into the room that the kid was in? That they just went back to the apartment and looked in the front door?


The same Father who said he went back to check, saw something that looked odd, think it was something that was moved either to or from a shelf the child could not have reached and that he never thought to check where the child was sleeping.

So Kate McCann just took the chance that one of the others checking on the child might discover the dead body then? Or if you believe she or Gerry moved the body before that, you think they would then just turn up for dinner acting like nothing had happened, allowing the others to check on Madeline, only to find her missing instead?

If the child had been killed accidently, it could have happened hours earlier, leaving plenty of time for a small body to be moved to a temporary location. Something that was hinted at when the cadaver dogs picked up the scent of a corpse in the McCann's car and also at the church that the mother went to when it happened.

This baffles me the most - what ordinarily loving parent, would discover their dead child and then instead of raise the alarm or scream in grief, but instead decide to coldly just dispose of the body, whilst a short while later just put the twins to bed and saunter off down to dinner, acting perfectly normally, allowing others to check the room? Doesn't make any sense.

The cadaver dogs - now, who's to say Madeline wasn't smothered in the room to stifle her screams or cries and was indeed dead in the room at some stage before being taken? Why presume it was the McCanns? Indeed, who's to say the cadaver dogs are reliable evidence at all? As far as I know, they are not used as evidence in court, because they are simply not reliable enough.

The constant changing by their witnesses of how the person seen carrying a child looked is odd as well. First it was a white man, and they got the British guy as a suspect as they said it looked like him. Then it was a woman that they saw. Then it became a guy with sallow skin a moustache and greasy hair. And each time they were 100% on what they said they saw.

There is no evidence whatsoever to assume that any person seen carrying a child was the abductor. More likely another holidaymaker, or a local carrying their own child. There were other families there. Perhaps they were clutching at straws and hoping this person they recall seeing was the abductor. Refer to my earlier post where I mention how different people can give differing accounts of the same incident called 'the Roshomon effect'.

Throw in the claims that the shutters on the apartment were forced, which was proven false almost immediately.

Claims or suggestions? The McCanns admit the patio door was open and offered the suggestion that perhaps the abductor left through the shutters, as the windows were open. They can't claim that's what happened as they weren't there. Perhaps you could assume the grieving parents weren't in the most logical state of mind. It might be the first thing you'd assume if the window was open too.

Nah too many things kept changing and each time were presented as fact for me to believe anything other than a small child was taken from the world one way or another.

In an unsolved missing persons case (of which there are many around the world), stories may change as people remember previously forgotton scraps of memory. Can you remember every tiny detail of what you do, or say or see on any given day? Imagine yourself in a state of immense shock and grief and then try remembering every detail....

Not one scrap of any of the largely circumstantial evidence presented would lead me to believe that Kate and Gerry are anything other than grieving parents and that little madeline was the victim of tragic circimstance, taken or killed by an oppurtunist, who was probably watching the apartment that night. Sadly, it happens every day, all over the world.

Ann22

Many people are saying how ridiculous it is to suspect them of killing her but I don't think anyone is accusing them of that. I think most who do suspect them of anything feel they covered up her accidental death.

If it was an accident, they may have panicked as she'd been left alone. There's been a lot of speculation about the conflicting timelines...but I wouldn't automatically assume they had anything to do with her disappearance just because of that, as there is the possibility that they hadn't been checking the kids at all.

If they lied about that it could've been just so they didn't appear so negligent. Remember Madeleine cried for a long period of time for her daddy a night or two before and no one came home. If the child was abductedy and if the group had've admitted in the first place that no one had checked on the kids...they may have really looked like a bunch of selfish parents who didn't care if their kids were crying or not once they'd a good night out but maybe they wouldn't have fallen under suspicion so quickly. In that case the police may have believed it was quite possible that someone had walked into the apartment and strolled out the door with the child without being disturbed.

I have to say though, many here may not be aware of how much the coverage in the English tabloids is biased, I've read much of the Portuguese press translations...not just the tabloids but quality papers and it gives a totally different view of the case. The police really did an amazing job, they worked day and night on the case as they were under immense pressure. Masses of people were questioned and every single lead was followed up. The papers in the uk are still saying the Pj didn't bother their a*ses searching for her, that's totally wrong. Even when they changed senior detectives over the case, they still came to the same conclusions. They should've been given access to the McCann's phone records...the sample from the car boot should've been retured to them undamaged but they weren't.

The conclusion the Pj have come to is that Madeleine was standing on the back of the sofa trying to see Gerry who was down the street talking to someone, she fell and perhaps banged her head...maybe she was lying there for a while before anyone noticed. That would explain the blood residue there and both sniffer dogs reacting. I wonder why one of them reacted to the wardrobe, could they have wrapped her in a blanket and hid her there until the crowd was gone?

This is Martin Grime's official report from the PJ files, if anyone cares to read it. It looks really bad for the McCanns but without clear uncomtaminated forensic evidence it wasn't enough to charge them.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Martin Grime's official report from the PJ case files
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]August 2007

OPERATION TASK CANINE SEARCH REPORT

Personal Profile

I am a 'retired' police officer, formally a senior instructor at the South Yorkshire Police dog training establishment.

I have 35 years experience in the training of dogs both within the police service and in the public sector.

I specialise in the development and training of specialist search dogs to include narcotics, explosives, currency, human remains, blood and semen.

I am the Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.

I am a U.K.A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers, England and wales) accredited police dog training instructor. Iam a Subject Matter Expert in forensic canine search and on the N.P.I.A. (National Policing Improvement Agency) Expert Advisers database.

I advise Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the operational deployment of Police Dogs in the role of Homicide investigation.

I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training.

I am regularly deployed to homicide cases within my portfolio and form a 'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys and USA.

I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs: 'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD).

'Keela' is a three-year old English Springer spaniel bitch who is trained as an Human blood search dog (C.S.I. dog).

OPERATION TASK CANINE DEPLOYMENTS 1-8 AUGUST 2007

On the instruction of The PJ Director, The Portuguese police kept all search records concerning the deployment of the search dogs. All dog searches were recorded by video.

The following searches were conducted:

Five apartments at a complex in Praia da Luz.
Mr. Murat's property at Praia da Luz.
Mr. McCann's Villa at Praia da Luz (Present occupancy).
Articles of clothing from Mr. McCann's residence.
Western beach Praia da Luz.
Eastern Beach Praia da Luz.
10 Vehicles screened at Portimao.

CANINE SEARCHES AT FIVE APARTMENTS AT PRAIA DA LUZ

All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications were at apartment 5a, the reported scene.

The EVRD alerted in the:

Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by the door.

Living room, behind sofa.

Veranda outside parent's bedroom.

Garden area directly under veranda.

My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment.

He will norrnally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search. On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above average interest. His behaviour was such that Ibelieved him to be 'in scent' and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.

I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so alerting in an area to the rear of the sofa in the lounge.

The dog's behaviour for these alerts led me to the following opinions:

The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.

The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood.

The forensic science support oficers were then deployed to recover items for laboratory analysis.

There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. Idid however see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response. Martin Grime (from video)

Talking about Eddie after he had barked loudly, indicating cadaver odour, in the area behind the sofa in the McCanns holiday apartment:

'What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times. He won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that. So, again, I would say that is a positive indication.'

Talking about Keela after she had given a 'passive indication' behind the same sofa that Eddie had indicated cadaver odour:

'The crime scene dog has actually given me what we call a 'passive indication', where she freezes, in this spot here, which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there.


CANINE SEARCH OF MR MURAT'S PROPERTY

The property was subjected to a search for human remains or blood stained articles. The outside of property was stripped of vegetation and after the ground being probed was searched by the EVRD dog. The inside of the property was then searched by the dog. There were no alert indications and no human remains were located.

CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY

The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD. The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

BOXES OF CLOTHING 1 PROPERTY FROM MR McCANN'S RESIDENCE

At a suitable venue numerous boxes of clothing 1 property taken from the McCann present residence were screened using both the EVRD and the CSI dog. The venue was screened by both dogs prior to introducing clothing / property. Neither gave an alert indication. The screening then took place with the contents of each box being placed around the room in turn. The process was recorded by video and written records were taken by PJ officers.

The only alert indication was by the EVRD on clothing from one of the boxes. I am not in possession of the details as these were recorded by the PJ ofíicers present.

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

WESTERN BEACH

The beach above the waterline was searched. This extended to areas of fallen rock and the cliff face as far as the dog could negotiate the incline. There were no alert indications.

EASTERN BEACH

The beach above the waterline was searched. This extended to areas of fallen rock and the cliff face as far as the dog could negotiate the incline. There were no alert indications.

CANINE VEHICLE SEARCHES

Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at Portimao. The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details, were parked on an empty floor with 20-30 feet between each. The vehicle placement video recording and management of the process was conducted by the PJ. The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door.

This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a forensic laboratory in the U.K.

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.

SUMMARY

The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and locate human remains or Human blood.

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could 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.

There are more dog search videos here among full case details. People shouldn't really be arguing about the case until they know the full facts.http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug11

[/FONT]

K-9

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

If they did kill her (which I don't believe) then what did they do with the body?

The police suggested it was up to 25 days after her death which I think is unlikely. There are gaps in the evening before where it could have happened.

Tipsy McSwagger

You would have to be one very cold hearted individual to find your little daughter dead inside your apartment and then just casually dump her body in the sea or bury her and then go on like nothing happened while joining friends for a meal.
And you did it because 'we didn't want people to know we left our kids on their own'.
If this was what happened then either one of them would have cracked by now or they would be at least be separated which happens a lot in child kidnappings/deaths.

dark crystal

K-9 wrote: »

The police suggested it was up to 25 days after her death which I think is unlikely. There are gaps in the evening before where it could have happened.

She was seen several times on the day of her disappearance. There is no way she could have been killed before 7 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann

This gives the McCanns 3 hours in which to kill, dispose of Madeleine and concoct a plan as well as put the twins to bed, get ready and go to dinner with their friends, all whilst acting perfectly normally.

Colmo52

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

If they did kill her (which I don't believe) then what did they do with the body?

Buried her at sea