Madeleine McCann

SusieBlue wrote: »

I was called out earlier for overly focusing on the most outlandish theories but it didn’t take long for yet another one to be wrecklessly thrown out with no basis.
These conspiracy theories are popping up every few hours and have absolutely no evidence to support them at all, yet were expected to just ‘ignore and move on’.
Like it’s ridiculous that this is even being suggested.

there is no evidence she was abducted.

B_ecke_r wrote: »

there is no evidence she was abducted.

There is no evidence to support any theory. There doesn't have to be evidence she was abducted. The lack of evidence doesn't mean she wasn't.

The case hasn't been solved because there is no evidence that points to what happened.

cnocbui wrote: »

The two sniffer dogs detect different things - one blood and the other the scent of cadaverine from corpses. The dogs didn't both signal in the same place. As the dogs handler has said, the dogs reactions are not evidence, they just indicate where there might be some. There was no forensic evidence recovered from where the dogs indicated. The dogs gave false alerts in later cases. People seem to love to paint these particular dogs as infallible as it suits their personal belief system. Independent tests by scientists have not found cadaver dogs to be remotely 100% accurate.

The following day after Madeline went missing, the Portuguese investigators brought in several SAR and sniffer dogs. They did seem to possibly find a scent trail but it ended. I think there is good chance they would have found a body that had been moved and hidden - as some suggest - or Madeleine herself, had she wandered off and got lost, but they found nothing.

The McCann's reaction to the dogs is probably more damning than the dog's reaction to the evidence. The suggestion that both dogs were just flat out wrong seems improbable.

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Is it just me or that fact there is no evidence of an abduction point at the McCann's

An abductor would have zero time to get rid of evidence , the kids would have woke ? Maddy would have screamed ? loads of different things with zero evidence,

There is reason's the Police thought it was them ,

Why didn't the lock the door and just pass each other the key when checking?
Why didn't the kids wake up during all the commotion ,
Why did the cadavers dog bark , in the room, at her Teddy at there car ?
Why did they lie about the time line ?
No one bar the McCann's seen Maddy since 6 pm ,
Why was it only one of Kate's prints on the window & from closing it , surely there was more prints there from the week ?

So many questions

Why did Kate say from the very beginning "They have taken her"?
seconds after finding Madeleine missing
Surely it would be " She's not in the room" or "Madeliene is missing" " She gone"
But "THEY HAVE TAKEN HER"?
Odd

limnam wrote: »

The fact she came across very relived that the dogs couldn't be used in court while drinking brandy with a known pedophile is more damming than that

He wasn't a known paedophile until 2016, so let's not paint the picture you're attempting to paint there. The McCann's weren't psychic.

They publicly denounced him when the allegations were public.

Deleted User wrote: »

But they did signal in the same locations, if not the same objects. Apartment 5A and the car. They searched all other cars and apartments and didn't signal at all.

The car wasn't hired by the McCanns until 25 days after Madeline went missing.

Any contention that the dog's indictions were that she was moved in that car after that amount of time is so improbable to be virtually impossible, especially given the fact that the McCanns couldn't open their door at that time without being met with a wall of press photographers.

yourdeadwright wrote: »

How did they become friends with him ?

Why did they want to become close to politicians and ex politician's,

Its always seemed to me they got close to people that made it difficult for the police to pursue the line that they had anything to do with it,

They got PR gurus and the likes involved , why if there innocent, ?

Its all very Ian Huntley like but on a bigger scale if you ask me,

Afaik he offered to help with the fund; how were they to know about his secret predilections back then?

Which politicians were they particularly close to?

The PR people were hired because of the amount of press they were dealing with. This was dealt with in the documentary.

Where on Earth are you getting the Ian Huntley similarities from? How are they in any way comparable?

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Anything is possible sometimes its easier to do get away with something that seems it would be to obvious

I think the questions is why of all the cars did the dog bark at that one, that very strange if you ask me,

I think you have to ask yourself what is more explainable.

A highly improbable scenario where the McCanns, under intense media and police scrutiny, manage to conceal the body of a child for at least 25 days and then manage to move it in their hire car without anyone noticing anything.

Or a false positive result from a dog.

Steve F wrote: »

Why did Kate say from the very beginning "They have taken her"?
seconds after finding Madeleine missing
Surely it would be " She's not in the room" or "Madeliene is missing" " She gone"
But "THEY HAVE TAKEN HER"?
Odd

A concerned parent would prefer to verbalise the lease horrifying option, i.e. that the child had walked out on her own and surely wouldn't get far. But Kate knew sedated children can't walk anywhere. The Smith sighting also backs up the theory of a child that was out for the count despite having been supposedly snatched by a stranger and dragged through a window. Kate was keen to emphasise how tired Madeline was after her day out with the creche I suppose. :rolleyes:

dark crystal wrote: »

I assume he came out of the blue, rather like JK Rowling did, yes. They must have thought their contribution to the fund might help in some way.

Their PR were too slick, their Pi's were too shabby...they can't win whatever they do.

If you watched the documentary, the only comparison made to Ian Huntley was with Robert Murat who the press felt acted similarly in that he inserted himself into the investigation. I'm not seeing the comparison with the McCann's at all, sorry.

There is no telling some people! Any reasonable person could see the parents only crime was leaving their kids unattended. Yet they hate the McCanns and think they killed their child and conspired with their friends to dispose of the body.

dark crystal wrote:

He wasn't a known paedophile until 2016, so let's not paint the picture you're attempting to paint there. The McCann's weren't psychic.

That's Clement Freud you are referring to? Yes, it became known after his death he had sexually assaulted two teenaged girls who had been living in his home. Whether they were employees or in some way related to him I don't know. His wife was aware and confirmed the allegations to be true. He did not appear to have a sexual interest in children of Madeleine's age and there was no reason to suspect him of any involvement in her disappearance. Nevertheless, he was a paedophile.

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Is it just me or that fact there is no evidence of an abduction point at the McCann's

An abductor would have zero time to get rid of evidence , the kids would have woke ? Maddy would have screamed ? loads of different things with zero evidence,

There is reason's the Police thought it was them ,

Why didn't the lock the door and just pass each other the key when checking?
Why didn't the kids wake up during all the commotion ,
Why did the cadavers dog bark , in the room, at her Teddy at there car ?
Why did they lie about the time line ?
No one bar the McCann's seen Maddy since 6 pm ,
Why was it only one of Kate's prints on the window & from closing it , surely there was more prints there from the week ?

So many questions

This abductor evidence -what form do you expect it to take - a conveniently dropped phone or wallet easily traced back to the perpetrator?

Do you have children? I have several times picked up mine from where they fell asleep and moved them to their beds without them even stirring, let alone waking. Remember the guy spotted on the street carrying his sleeping daughter?

Here is a scenario: He/she put's on gloves, they look around for any possible witnesses - they open the door and go in, leaving it open - they go into the bedroom and carefully move the covers and carefully pick Madeline up. They walk out of the door and close it then walk around to the car park at the back of the apartment and put her in the car and drive away.

What evidence would be left behind? No fingerprints, no dropped wallets or phones, no witnesses - nothing. There just doesn't have to be any evidence they would need to get rid of.

I think the dogs indicated as they did because they were picking up on subliminal cues from grimes indicating he wanted them to. Look up the Clever Hans effect. Actually, if you look at the videos of Grimes and the dogs, he has to just about drag them back to the car after they show no interest in it and move on.

Witnesses almost never give matching statements or recall events accurately. I believe a few bottles of wine had been consumed so that isn't going to help with that anyway.

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I don't hate the McCann's at all, I do think there quite odd

I don't know what happened but there a large number of issues with the story that have never been answered ,

If I had to bet I'd say the child was accidental death and I think the only people who know are Kate and Gerry, I don't think there friends where involved,

But when discussing it there are things that are possible even if they seem quite improbably ,

Remember there is zero evidence that anyone took there child, there isn't even any circumstantial evidence , Zero nothing ,

But there a number of question they answered that make little sense,

The Police thought it was them for a reason ,

It's all well and good to believe a theory, but quite another to attach a viable series of events in which your theory could have occurred. There's very little chance that the parents could have done it given the timeline, their demeanor directly after the supposed incident and the fact she's never been found. IMO. I've still to hear a viable theory yet.

I also believe the PJ were under enormous pressure to solve this case and keep the safe reputation of the Algarve intact. It was awful PR for Portugal, a child going missing at a Portuguese family resort. We know they leaked false evidence to the press. We know Amaral was formerly convicted of perjury. Who knows where the cadaver scent came from?

As with any unsolved disappearance, there will always be unanswered questions. I just think people need to take into account the logistics of this particular case and ask themselves why, how, when and where they did the alleged crime and go from there, rather than make wild assumptions based on very little evidence.