Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

K-9

I'd say he wrote the book to try and put forward his side of the story, that the Madeline story is so big is hardly his fault.

racso1975

123balltv wrote: »

What kind of monsters leave their babies on their own in a strange country in a strange apartment with unlocked doors and goes off to dinner with friends. Loving, caring responsible parents I dont think so.

It's the thing I cant get my head around. Also the fact that none of their friends said a thing is very strange too they must have all agreed that it was acceptable behaviour

123balltv

racso1975 wrote: »

It's the thing I cant get my head around. Also the fact that none of their friends said a thing is very strange too they must have all agreed that it was acceptable behaviour

The Mccanns must really love their friends and they love them

As much as I like my pals I would never leave my babies alone to spend
time with them, if I saw my pals coming down to the bar with no kids I would call the police :mad: friends or no friends

Sean Quagmire

123balltv wrote: »

The Mccanns must really love their friends and they love them

As much as I like my pals I would never leave my babies alone to spend
time with them, if I saw my pals coming down to the bar with no kids I would call the police :mad: friends or no friends

LOL

racso1975

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

LOL

And whats the lol............

everybody on this thread has seen the potential consequences of doing nothing or going along with it

ISDW

Can someone, who believes the McCanns had something to do with this, not necessarily killing her, but covering up her death somehow please give me a believable explanation for the cadaver dog indicating at the hire car. The hire car that they didn't actually have at the time that Madeleine went missing, but that they hired 3 weeks (?) later? Lets just suppose that she died, they hid her body somewhere near by, so that nobody managed to find her, we'll go with that scenario. With the Portugese police and the media watching every move they made, how did they then manage to get her body into the boot of the hire car and drive somewhere with it, and dispose of the body without anybody seeing them?

I am a huge supporter of working dogs, but this is the bit that I just cannot understand at all. How could the body of the child have been in a car that they didn't have when she went missing? I'm guessing that the police went back over the hire records, checking who did actually have the car at that time, and it was nobody involved in the case at all?

Sean Quagmire

so you would call the police if you seen your friend walk towards you with no kid? THE POLICE? wtf is that?! :pac:

angelfire9

ISDW wrote: »

Can someone, who believes the McCanns had something to do with this, not necessarily killing her, but covering up her death somehow please give me a believable explanation for the cadaver dog indicating at the hire car. The hire car that they didn't actually have at the time that Madeleine went missing, but that they hired 3 weeks (?) later? Lets just suppose that she died, they hid her body somewhere near by, so that nobody managed to find her, we'll go with that scenario. With the Portugese police and the media watching every move they made, how did they then manage to get her body into the boot of the hire car and drive somewhere with it, and dispose of the body without anybody seeing them?

I am a huge supporter of working dogs, but this is the bit that I just cannot understand at all. How could the body of the child have been in a car that they didn't have when she went missing? I'm guessing that the police went back over the hire records, checking who did actually have the car at that time, and it was nobody involved in the case at all?

Would it be possible that if Madeline had died they wrapped her body up in a blanket and following disposal of her corpse this blanket spent some time in the boot of the hire car & the cadaver scent transferred?

racso1975

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

so you would call the police if you seen your friend walk towards you with no kid? THE POLICE? wtf is that?! :pac:

Well i'm hardly going to pick up the phone without talking to them about it first but if my hand was forced by their lack of reaction then i would.

What would you do?

angelfire9

123balltv wrote: »

The Mccanns must really love their friends and they love them

As much as I like my pals I would never leave my babies alone to spend
time with them, if I saw my pals coming down to the bar with no kids I would call the police :mad: friends or no friends

I wouldn't call the cops
I'd presume they had arranged a sitter if they arrived to the bar without the kids in tow
If I found out during the course of conversation that the kids were unattended then i'd kick off or sort out something in the line of babysitting possibly suggesting their kids join our kids (who presumably do have a sitter)

I certainly wouldn't be able to relax thinking the kids were unattended but calling the cops is a bit of an extreme reaction
Getting a sitter is a bit more practical don't ya think??

finty

123balltv wrote: »

What kind of monsters leave their babies on their own in a strange country in a strange apartment with unlocked doors and goes off to dinner with friends. Loving, caring responsible parents I dont think so.

monsters? really?

123balltv

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

so you would call the police if you seen your friend walk towards you with no kid? THE POLICE? wtf is that?! :pac:

I was commenting on the Mccann situation when the accident/kidnapping
happened those friends must have known those babies were alone while
they were sipping cocktails at the bar

NTMK

angelfire9 wrote: »

Would it be possible that if Madeline had died they wrapped her body up in a blanket and following disposal of her corpse this blanket spent some time in the boot of the hire car & the cadaver scent transferred?

It could also have transfered from clothes with blood/that she was wearing if they were put car at any stage

thebullkf

ISDW wrote: »

Can someone, who believes the McCanns had something to do with this, not necessarily killing her, but covering up her death somehow please give me a believable explanation for the cadaver dog indicating at the hire car. The hire car that they didn't actually have at the time that Madeleine went missing, but that they hired 3 weeks (?) later? Lets just suppose that she died, they hid her body somewhere near by, so that nobody managed to find her, we'll go with that scenario. With the Portugese police and the media watching every move they made, how did they then manage to get her body into the boot of the hire car and drive somewhere with it, and dispose of the body without anybody seeing them?

I am a huge supporter of working dogs, but this is the bit that I just cannot understand at all. How could the body of the child have been in a car that they didn't have when she went missing? I'm guessing that the police went back over the hire records, checking who did actually have the car at that time, and it was nobody involved in the case at all?

Hi ISDW,

I remember reading something before about the reliability of the dogs used, ie false positives etc.
It also mentioned that they (the dogs) were given something of Maddies-eg hairbrush/t-shirt to get the initial 'scent' -the explanation given for the dogs reaction was that one of maddies toys/dolls/teddies was in the rental car carried by kate or a family member.

I do believe we are not being exposed to the full facts of the case myself, as i posted earlier, there is defo something not quite right with the McCanns version of events..

ISDW

angelfire9 wrote: »

Would it be possible that if Madeline had died they wrapped her body up in a blanket and following disposal of her corpse this blanket spent some time in the boot of the hire car & the cadaver scent transferred?

NTMK wrote: »

It could also have transfered from clothes with blood/that she was wearing if they were put car at any stage

thebullkf wrote: »

Hi ISDW,

I remember reading something before about the reliability of the dogs used, ie false positives etc.
It also mentioned that they (the dogs) were given something of Maddies-eg hairbrush/t-shirt to get the initial 'scent' -the explanation given for the dogs reaction was that one of maddies toys/dolls/teddies was in the rental car carried by kate or a family member.

I do believe we are not being exposed to the full facts of the case myself, as i posted earlier, there is defo something not quite right with the McCanns version of events..

Thanks, but these dogs are trained only to the scent of a dead body, so the toys/dolls thing doesn't compute.

If she was wrapped in a blanket, or some piece of clothing that she was wearing when she died was put in the car, did the police not find anything like that when they were searching? How many washes would it take to clean a scent off a piece of clothing?

thebullkf

ISDW wrote: »

Thanks, but these dogs are trained only to the scent of a dead body, so the toys/dolls thing doesn't compute.

If she was wrapped in a blanket, or some piece of clothing that she was wearing when she died was put in the car, did the police not find anything like that when they were searching? How many washes would it take to clean a scent off a piece of clothing?

Says who...

angelfire9

Looking beyond the issue that they left the kids alone and going along with the presumption that she was kidnapped you have to ask:

1) Why were there NO foreign prints or fibres found on or near the patio door that they say was left open

2) Why would no presumably intelligent people let half the countryside wander through the apartment which would have been a crime scene instead of waiting for the CSI's (or spanish equivalent)

3) How come no one other than a friend of the McCann's see the kidnapping or indeed anything unusual on the night in question

4) Why are there so many contradictions in the McCann's statements relating to what they had done earlier on in the night, presumably the whole night is etched in stone in their memories

5) Why did the McCann's refuse to answer any of the 48 questions the police asked them?

6) Why didn't the McCann's spend any time themselves looking for Madeline instead of jetting around the world seeing the Pope etc etc and paying PI's to look for her

7) Why have they consistently refused to take lie detector tests?

8) How on earth can they be seen smiling & joking in photos taken 10 days after Madeline's disappearance

9) Why did Kate wash the toy cat that Madeline loved immediately after her disappearance instead of clinging on to it and the scent of her child
(I remember when my eldest had her tonsils out I clung religiously to her favourite doll for the duration of the op because it made me feel closer to her)

10) last and most tellingly, why do the McCann's refer to Madeline as dead and yet continue the charade of looking for her:

On 11 December 2009, Gerry McCann said: “There is no evidence that we were involved in Madeleine’s death”. The previous year, the McCanns’ spokesman said: “Can I suggest you actually quote me accurately. I said: ‘I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine’s death’.”

To sum up.... the "kidnapping" story doesn't add up

I've no idea what happened to Madeline Mc Cann but I'd be fairly sure that Kate & Gerry Mc Cann do!

steddyeddy

ISDW wrote: »

Thanks, but these dogs are trained only to the scent of a dead body, so the toys/dolls thing doesn't compute.

If she was wrapped in a blanket, or some piece of clothing that she was wearing when she died was put in the car, did the police not find anything like that when they were searching? How many washes would it take to clean a scent off a piece of clothing?

Well blood hounds (Im not sure if blood hounds were used tbh) are used to find live and dead people. The rescue services use them in america to find people after they becomes dioriented and wander off after an accident or to search for missing people. If the police didnt know for sure that maddy was dead why would they bring a dog that could only detect scent from a dead body?

MagicMarker

thebullkf wrote: »

Says who...

Eh, they're cadaver dogs.

One of them was trained specifically to pick the scent of blood though.

endabob1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well blood hounds (Im not sure if blood hounds were used tbh) are used to find live and dead people. The rescue services use them in america to find people after they becomes dioriented and wander off after an accident or to search for missing people. If the police didnt know for sure that maddy was dead why would they bring a dog that could only detect scent from a dead body?

There were 2 dogs 1 trained to find blood the other trained to specifically find human cadaverine - the scent of a human corpse.

racso1975

angelfire9 wrote: »

To sum up.... the "kidnapping" story doesn't add up

I've no idea what happened to Madeline Mc Cann but I'd be fairly sure that Kate & Gerry Mc Cann do!

Agree x 100000000000000000000

ISDW

thebullkf wrote: »

Says who...

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well blood hounds (Im not sure if blood hounds were used tbh) are used to find live and dead people. The rescue services use them in america to find people after they becomes dioriented and wander off after an accident or to search for missing people. If the police didnt know for sure that maddy was dead why would they bring a dog that could only detect scent from a dead body?

They are trained cadaver dogs.

No, they're not blood hounds, the one I saw on the video that is on this thread a few times is a spaniel.

Go back in the thread and read the posts where the cadaver dogs are referred to in the police reports etc, and maybe watch the video showing them working.

Tipsy McSwagger

TheZohan wrote: »

Where does it say he was convicted of beating anyone? He was questioned and found innocent, he wasn't anywhere near the station when the beating of the murderer took place.

That article is, at best, an opinion piece. He wasn't fired, he retired.

Do you have a proper source?

You're clutching at straws here.

You asked for a source and you got one, also he covered up the beating and he retired before he got sacked because he is a drunk who didnt do his job properly.

AudreyHepburn

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

You asked for a source and you got one, also he covered up the beating and he retired before he got sacked because he is a drunk who didnt do his job properly.

This is what gets to me. I have no issue with people questioning things but for some reason even when given reasonable explanations and responses some still will not consider that they may be wrong.

TheZohanS

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

You asked for a source and you got one, also he covered up the beating and he retired before he got sacked because he is a drunk who didnt do his job properly.

A proper source, not some rag. He didn't cover up anything, he had no hand in her beating.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

This is what gets to me. I have no issue with people questioning things but for some reason even when given reasonable explanations and responses some still will consider that they may be wrong.

A hearsay opinion piece isn't a source, if we were expected to believe crap like that then everyone on this thread would have to believe that the McCanns murdered their daughter and hid her body, there's enough evidence in hearsay to suggest it.

Is that what you want everyone to do? Accept unreliable nothing sources and believe that the McCanns murdered their daughter?

Quite frankly that doesn't sit well with me.

sham69

This is what gets to me. I have no issue with people questioning things but for some reason even when given reasonable explanations and responses some still will not consider that they may be wrong.

But this is what gets to me.
There has been no explanations given by the mccanns for any of the important questions and contradictory evidence??

We are just covering the same old ground here over and over again.
The facts stack up against them and they havent once come out and given explanations for any of it?

sham69

Contradictory statements is what I meant sorry not evidence..

Appleblossom42

ISDW wrote: »

Thanks, but these dogs are trained only to the scent of a dead body, so the toys/dolls thing doesn't compute.

If she was wrapped in a blanket, or some piece of clothing that she was wearing when she died was put in the car, did the police not find anything like that when they were searching? How many washes would it take to clean a scent off a piece of clothing?

Published: 05 Sep 2008
EXPERTS say sniffer dogs can play a vital role in fighting crime - but warn it is "madness" to rely on their findings. The animals are used to lead police to evidence, but do not provide evidence themselves. One expert told The Sun: "The dogs can identify traces of blood, but it's crazy to draw major conclusions just from what they find. "Any evidence they find should be used as a starting point. It's madness just to rely on the findings of the sniffer dogs."
Handler Martin Grimes, who worked with his dogs on the Maddie case, admitted the animals offered no more than "a guide". He said: "They can identify traces of blood and detect the smell of a decomposing body, but that is as far as they go."Martin said his dogs Keela and Eddie would only give him an indication when they find what they are trained to detect. He said: "Blood could be invisible to the naked eye, but Keela will detect it. It doesn't matter if it's hundreds of years old. "Eddie smells for the scent of a decomposing human body. He can detect any part of a human body that is decomposing - hair, bones, flesh, anything. "
The smell of a decomposing body is very difficult to get rid of. It can easily be transferred to clothing and on to a person." A spokesman for the McCanns said: "Dog alerts can be unreliable. The handler himself makes it clear in the police report that such alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence. There was no such evidence. "Gerry and Kate are not interested in dwelling on mistakes that were made. They and their investigation team wish to focus entirely on finding Maddie."

_feedback_

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

You asked for a source and you got one, also he covered up the beating and he retired before he got sacked because he is a drunk who didnt do his job properly.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

This is what gets to me. I have no issue with people questioning things but for some reason even when given reasonable explanations and responses some still will not consider that they may be wrong.

In fairness, the source posted was fairly rubbish. If that can be a source of legitimacy, sure you could have just linked to one of your own previous posts of your opinion on it.

TheZohanS

Appleblossom42 wrote: »

Published: 05 Sep 2008
EXPERTS say sniffer dogs can play a vital role in fighting crime - but warn it is "madness" to rely on their findings. The animals are used to lead police to evidence, but do not provide evidence themselves. One expert told The Sun: "The dogs can identify traces of blood, but it's crazy to draw major conclusions just from what they find. "Any evidence they find should be used as a starting point. It's madness just to rely on the findings of the sniffer dogs."
Handler Martin Grimes, who worked with his dogs on the Maddie case, admitted the animals offered no more than "a guide". He said: "They can identify traces of blood and detect the smell of a decomposing body, but that is as far as they go."Martin said his dogs Keela and Eddie would only give him an indication when they find what they are trained to detect. He said: "Blood could be invisible to the naked eye, but Keela will detect it. It doesn't matter if it's hundreds of years old. "Eddie smells for the scent of a decomposing human body. He can detect any part of a human body that is decomposing - hair, bones, flesh, anything. "
The smell of a decomposing body is very difficult to get rid of. It can easily be transferred to clothing and on to a person." A spokesman for the McCanns said: "Dog alerts can be unreliable. The handler himself makes it clear in the police report that such alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence. There was no such evidence. "Gerry and Kate are not interested in dwelling on mistakes that were made. They and their investigation team wish to focus entirely on finding Maddie."

Not just any dog, it was Keela.

HER detective work is unsurpassed, her dedication to duty during some of Britain’s most challenging murder cases unfailing.

Keela, a 16-month-old springer spaniel, has become such an asset to South Yorkshire Police that she now earns more than the chief constable.

Her sense of smell, so keen that she can sniff traces of blood on weapons that have been scrubbed after attacks, has her so much in demand by forces up and down the country that she is hired out at £530 a day, plus expenses.

Thought to be the only one of her kind, the crime scenes dog earns nearly £200,000 a year. Her daily rate, ten times that of ordinary police dogs, puts her on more than the chief constable, Meredydd Hughes, who picks up £129,963.

Keela’s considerable talent in uncovering minute pieces of evidence that can later be confirmed by forensic tests has put her in the forefront of detective work across Britain. She was drafted in to help after the stabbing of the young mother, Abigail Witchalls, in Surrey, and has been involved in high- profile cases across 17 forces, from Devon and Cornwall to Strathclyde.

She has already helped to apprehend a murderer after sniffing out blood on a knife.

PC John Ellis, her handler, said that police sent for Keela when the scenes of crime squad failed to find what they were looking for. “She can detect minute quantities of blood that cannot be seen with the human eye,” he said. “She is used at scenes where someone has tried to clean it up. If blood has seeped into the tiles behind a bath where a body has been, she can find it.”

The spaniel can sniff out blood in clothes after they have been washed repeatedly in biological washing powder, and can detect microscopic amounts on weapons that have been scrubbed and washed.

When faced with a “clean” crime scene, Mr Ellis and PC Martin Grimes, Keela’s other handler, will first send in Frankie, a border collie, and Eddie, another springer spaniel, to pick up any general scent. Then they wheel in the big gun.

“We take Keela in and she will find the minutest traces of blood,” Mr Ellis said. “It’s not like looking for a needle in a haystack any more. The other two dogs will find the haystack and Keela will find the needle.”

While the other dogs bark, Keela has been trained to freeze and pinpoint the area with her nose.

Mr Ellis said Keela’s “perfect temperament” and enthusiasm made her a great asset. “We thought we would get one or two deployments a year, but things have just snowballed. Obviously when we are called in by other forces they are charged a fee and it’s quite funny to think she can earn more than the chief constable.”

Mr Hughes showed there were no hard feelings. The chief constable said: “Keela’s training gives the force an edge when it comes to forensic investigation which we should recognise and use more often.” Mr Ellis and Mr Grimes came up with a special training regime to focus on Keela’s remarkable skills. It has proved so successful that the FBI has inquired about it. “The FBI is very interested in how we work because they don’t have this sort of facility in-house and they are looking at setting up their own unit,” Mr Ellis said.

Paul Ruffell, of K9 Solutions, a security firm specialising in dog units, said he was amazed at Keela’s abilities. “I’ve been working in this business for 25 years and I’ve never heard anything like it,” he said.