Madeleine McCann

cnocbui wrote: »

What evidence do you have that allows you to objectively assess the quality of training of the Portuguese SAR and sniffer dogs vs the training of the UK dogs and conclude that the training of the Portuguese dogs is inferior?

It doesn't strike you as odd that the Portuguese have trained sniffer and SAR dogs that never find anything and have never proved beneficial because they are poorly trained, and yet they haven't copped on?

If the Portuguese police engaged dogs who had never found anything or proved beneficial, that would certainly be strange, but I don't see anyone on this thread suggesting that.

What exact motive are you imputing to the Portuguese police in enlisting these dogs from the UK? They brought them in to frame Madeleine's parents? If so, they must have either known in advance that the dogs would have reacted the way they did, which is impossible, or else they were in collaboration with the British authorities to frame the McCanns, which seems utterly implausible.

id say people should think ignoring all the netflix pr crap or youtube nonsense consiracy theories, does anyone believe that those two without any sense or brains could actually pulled of somehow killing their own child, covering it up, making a pact, hiding the body and making it to the restaurant in matter of 3-4 hours at most as if nothing had happened.




they were negligent on many accounts to the point where if it was any other family they would prob face jail time and kids taken away in likes of UK. For creating such a loose situation where anyone could walked into apartment within minutes or seconds robbed it or kidnap child and be gone to never be found.


a lot of wrongs were done but all of which was due to parents being reckless.


as all theories aside its way to small window to fabricate kidnap, distances would been minimal and scouted many times for evidence, yet none of it ever proved any results.


sure thing that they created perfect scenario for disaster - and are only ones to blame really is themselves.

cnocbui wrote: »

https://andrearlesmanashay.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/are-cadaver-dogs-reliable/

As I said, I can't confirm that Grimes actually said that since no source is given.

I'm almost sure he mentions in it in the Netflix Documentary too. He says the dogs in themselves cannot be relied upon as evidence, but they can give investigators a lead in where to look....or something similar.


In this case, they took DNA from where the dogs indicated and nothing conclusive was found at all.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Can't link off my phone but not terribly difficult to Google it. As an aside must be something good about UK trained sniffer dogs. Another team of British sniffer dogs were used again to search areas around P de L in 2014 .

The McCanns didnt request the dogs. They reportedly were actually a bit nervous about the introduction of the dogs in the search.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Best you tell the Guardian newspaper so.

The Portuguese head detective said so. They requested the help of the dogs.

Calltocall wrote:

What? I don’t follow you, I’ve said they gave the opportunity to someone with bad intent by leaving their room unlocked, that was their critical mistake, and do you know why they made those decisions?? Imo it was Because they were negligent, because they didn’t think there was someone waiting to abduct their child. They shouldn’t have done that but it doesn’t make them murderers. Also a note was left in the reception area which stated the time they would be away from their kids and also the nights they were away from their room, doesn’t take a genius to figure out someone who wanted to take a child had all the info he needed. And they’re not fairytales btw the charity collector was reported by witnesses, also do you know there were at least 6 sexual assaults against british children that occured in the algarve area in holiday villas by a lone intruder at night, 3 in praia da luz, one in 2005 in praia da luz that involved a man that snuck into a ten year old girls room, no one was ever apprehended. Not fairytales.

They felt it was safe enough to leave the children unattended for short periods of time. This is understandable given the particular location and circumstances although ultimately proved to be disastrous for the family. Clearly, there were no warnings in place from either the police or the resort staff as to possible risks to children at that time. Why would there have been? The majority of child abductions tend to be carried out by a disaffected parent or carer of a child who may have an underlying mental illness or be experiencing difficult domestic circumstances say, for example, a separated father who has restricted access to his child. The instances of child abduction and trafficking carried out by organised criminal gangs are rare although probably the most likely cause in this instance - the disappearance of Madeleine. The next most likely type of culprit would have been a lone, opportunistic type of predator with a sexual motivation and probably a local.
The individual you mention in your post was arrested, charged and subsequently died but was proven not to be linked in any way with the McCann case.

chicorytip wrote: »

They felt it was safe enough to leave the children unattended for short periods of time. This is understandable given the particular location and circumstances although ultimately proved to be disastrous for the family. Clearly, there were no warnings in place from either the police or the resort staff as to possible risks to children at that time. Why would there have been? The majority of child abductions tend to be carried out by a disaffected parent or carer of a child who may have an underlying mental illness or be experiencing difficult domestic circumstances say, for example, a separated father who has restricted access to his child. The instances of child abduction and trafficking carried out by organised criminal gangs are rare although probably the most likely cause in this instance - the disappearance of Madeleine. The next most likely type of culprit would have been a lone, opportunistic type of predator with a sexual motivation and probably a local.
The individual you mention in your post was arrested, charged and subsequently died but was proven not to be linked in any way with the McCann case.

I got as far as your second sentence. The fact that you think what the mccanns did , by leaving their 3 children under the age of 3 was “ understandable “ means that I won’t be reading anything else that you’ll ramble .. shocking

chicorytip wrote: »

They felt it was safe enough to leave the children unattended for short periods of time. This is understandable given the particular location and circumstances although ultimately proved to be disastrous for the family. Clearly, there were no warnings in place from either the police or the resort staff as to possible risks to children at that time.se.

I most certainely is not understable in that location or in any other location . That particular location was an unlocked apartment opening on to a public road . I doubt very much you would leave your credit card exposed in it .
And sensible caring parents dont need warnings about the risk of leaving three very young children alone . Thankfully most parents wouldnt dream of it

Eric Cartman wrote: »

before that documentary I would have said you'd need a whole body of evidence to convince me anyone except the parents did it. After that documentary its just cemented the belief a bit more.

sedating your kids to go get pissed with your other doctor friends is pretty abhorrent behaviour on its own, let alone what happened after.

The documentary told you that they sedated the kids? Interesting. What evidence did the documentary offer to support this allegation?

Mike9832 wrote: »

2 and half year old toddlers don't sleep for 8 hours straight through the scenes that went on in that apartment, it's madness that wasn't investigated

Both my kids were out for the count at 8pm most nights when on holiday. You'd have needed a JCB to move them.

Trekker09 wrote: »

You can't get passed the fact that some of us think that although they made a mistake by leaving their kids in the apartment, we can look at the big picture and come to the conclusion that the McCanns didn't have anything directly to do with Maddies disappearance.

I don't particular care if you or anyone else thinks they were involved or not.


Outside of that, no matter where you stand on how guilty or innocent they're.


It doesn't change how negligent what they did is. You seem to be under some strange illusion that I think they're guilty because of the negligence.


Leaving 3 kids alone while you go out drinking doesn't make you a murder. Sure. But it does make you an extremely negligent parent.



That's the part that surprises me. Not that people think they're innocent.

Trekker09 wrote: »

What proof have you that they went and got pissed?

He doesn't need any proof, either of child sedation or the McCanns being 'pissed'. It's carte blanche to say whatever you like about them, proof or not. That's the way the internet works.

With regards the getting pissed comment its reported by the detectives that the McCanns consumed 5 bottles of wine between them that night. I think it was Kate that told them that.

Trekker09 wrote: »

Right, prove to me that they went out 'drinking' and not for a bite to eat with a couple of glasses of wine! By drinking I mean out to get intoxicated.

They had a bottle shared before they got to the restaurant apparently. Between 8 and 830



I don't know what you consider going out drinking.


I never mentioned intoxicated.

Gringo180 wrote: »

With regards the getting pissed comment its reported by the detectives that the McCanns consumed 5 bottles of wine between them that night. I think it was Kate that told them that.

Just a tipple.


I thought she had said one of the other nights he came back fairly well on too.

Did they search for her all night? Reports is that they went to bed after a few hours searching. Dont know about anyone else but I wouldnt of slept until I found her or until i collapsed with tiredness.

Trekker09 wrote: »

If that's the case then it was very negligent. 2.5 bottles of wine in under 3 hours! Thats worse than binge drinking.

If they were drinking water all night it was very negligent.

I dont leave my 3 year old on his own EVER. Not for any reason. If he is in bed I am in the living room below him. If I am going out he goes to my Sisters or Brothers for the night for correct supervision.

The fact they went out of the apartment and left 3 kids unattended was shocking. Negligent beyond words.
Whatever happend to the poor child is the fault of her parents. If they were looking after kids correctly nothing would have happened.

For the record I suspect they know more than they let on. The documentary leaves alot of questions to be answered. Yes those type programmes can be made from one viewpoint or another but there has always been a doubt for me that they know more than they let on.