McCann Case Still Unsolved?

I have no doubt that we are all striving for a common goal Moab. We (just using we in a general way, not you and I necessarily) may have different backgrounds, different views on many different fronts, but I honestly believe that we all gather here due to our mutual outrages and our mutual eternal hope for a better world. I think we are all of the kind who would not hesitate to stand toe to toe with a bully and will unwaveringly stand arm in arm to pursue justice for a victim.

Little

 

The sniffer dogs

Video of the sniffer dogs' search of the hired car and apartment:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug3

One can see cadaver dog Eddie very excited as he approaches the sofa and after it is removed from the wall, he barks like crazy when sniffing behind the sofa.

From what I have been told on another forum, Eddie alerted to the scent of cadaverine from a human (he does not alert to animal or other decomposed organic material) in the living room, behind the sofa.

Keela alerted to the scent of blood in the same spot behind the sofa

Blood was found when the tiles behind the sofa were removed and tested. The sample was degraded though, probably due to cleaning chemicals.

It was also posted that the FSS lab was able to check only five markers from that site but that all five of those markers matched Madeleine's DNA, and that there were no markers that could not have come from Madeleine.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77174&page=9

To get the picture, my question: suppose a sample of blood is found which contains five markers matching Jane Doe's DNA, how high in per cent is the probability that this blood does come from Jane Doe? TIA for help in clearing this up.

 

I don't think five markers is nearly enough to make an identification. Siblings and parents can share more markers than that I'm sure.

I know a lot has been made of the sniffer dogs, but I also know for a fact that sniffer dogs can alert for many reasons and without the benefit of a "find", we have know way of knowing precisely what that reason was. Cadaverine (sp) also exists in urine for example. The dogs are a useful tool, of that there is no doubt, but an alert on its own is not evidence.

When I was going on vacation several years ago, a police sniffer dog got really interested in me. I very innocently/ignorantly thought the dog was just being friendly and I just stood there saying "Hello, nice doggie" kind of stuff. The policeman stood patiently for a few moments but eventually said "Could you empty your bag M'am". I was really embarassed to have been so stupid about the dog's interest in me. As it turned out, a half-eaten chicken sandwich in my hand-luggage was the cause of the dog's excitement. The policeman told us that food was a common distraction to the dogs.

 

PS: It's important to remember that this was a rental apartment which slept 4-6 people. If the season runs from March-October that's about 32 weeks multiplied by (say) 4 people is 128 people per year. People often walk around barefoot on a summer beach/swimming pool type holiday. Children fall and cut themselves all the time. I'd be willing to bet that there would be plenty of microscopic blood spots in these apartments. We checked out of a holiday apartment in Cyprus some years ago after we found bloodstains on the bed! Gross.

I'd be interested to know how many alerts these dogs would make if they were taken into random apartments.

It's also important to note that the dogs aren't infallible and are wrong something like 20% of the time. There was a case in America which highlighted this quite recently.

It would have been great if sniffer dogs have been brought in straight away.

 

OK, my comment on the sniffer dog videos.

The one of the dogs in the apartment has been withdrawn from YouTube so I can't see it.

The one of the dog at the car is astonishing.

The scene is a car compound of some sort - indoor car park. There are several cars which are parked in it and they are well spaced out.

There is a dog handler dressed in protective clothing and the dog, a springer spaniel.

The handler pats the dog and give it some indecipherable instruction to start.

The dog excitedly runs into an empty corner of the car park and the handler shouts and claps and guides to towards car #1.

The dog runs towards car#1 and runs round it sniffing.

The handler also walks towards car #1 and indicates to the dog to go to it but the handler doesn't stop and keeps walking towards car #2.

The dog again runs round car #2 sniffing and once again the handler encourages it to sniff the car but once again the handler doesn't stop but keeps moving towards car #3.

Same thing, dog runs round the car, instruction to sniff but again the handler keeps moving.

Eventually they come to the McCann car and what happens? The dog runs right past it. However, the handler stops and calls the dog back.

The dog comes back and runs round the car sniffing and then runs towards another car in the garage.

What happens? The handler calls it back to the McCann car. The dog comes back, runs around it again sniffing and then it loses interest and runs back towards the other car again.

What happens? The handler calls it back again and start pointing to parts of the car that he wants the dog to sniff specifically. He points to the wheels and even taps on the boot of the car.

HE DID NOT DO THIS WITH ANY OTHER CAR.

The dog runs around the car sniffing and then even then it runs off a THIRD time to the other car.

The handler stays beside the McCann car and the dog starts to run back to him but then turns and returns to the other car a FOURTH time.

The handler shouts on the dog to come back.

The dog comes back to him and sniffs at the parts of the car being pointed out by the handler. Eventually it stops at the driver door of the car (I'm assuming it's a left hand drive in Portugal) and he/she barks.

Then the handler takes off his mask and tells the camera that this was the only car the dog reacted to.

I'm sorry, but I am sruggling to see this being admissable in any court. The McCann car was blatantly treated differently from any other car in the compound because it was the only one he stopped and remained at, the only one he repeatedly called the dog back to and the only one he tapped.

I've read articles about sniffer dogs which say that sometimes they react to please the handlers and it looked very much as though the handler was only interested in this one car.

It's the first time I've seen this video and I'm really surprised at what I saw.

I could only accept this as significant if the conditions had been equal for each of the cars.

 

The perspective given by that video snippet is confusing; a while back I saw another video and it is in the back of my mind that the different cars could be seen much clearer there. I'l see if I can find it - some videos of the search can't be accessed YouTube anymore.

 

I think Eddie and Keela were in fact taken to other appartments but did not alert to anything there.

Which case was this?

Absolutely.

 

It looks like a continuous piece of film. I found a couple of other videos but they seem to be just edited highlights of the one I watched. Also, you can't see any other cameras in the film despite the fact that the camera pans round a few times to follow the dog.

 

I didn't follw the case in America but it has been discussed a few times on McCann forums.

The dogs in that case had a very high rate of innacuracy. I concede that the British dogs are probably among the best they are, but if I were a juror watching that video of the car dog, I'd be deeply unhappy about accepting it as evidence of anything at all.

It looks very much as if the dog was being made to focus on that car.

And what does her barking mean? She detected the "scent of death" at a car door?" Three months after a child went missing and two months after the parents hired the car for a week? How old was the car? Who else had hired it? What else could explain the dog's alert?

There are just too many variables? Not to mention the fact that kate McCann is a general practictioner who attends and certifies deaths for a living.

I think the Portuguese police dug themselves a hole when they tried to suggest that the McCanns had somehow hidden her body for a month and then moved it, (putrefaction and all) in the hire car.

I think the case will be solved some day. There must be someone who knows what happened and maybe they are keeping their mouth shut out of loyalty just now, but there may come a day when that relationship breaks down and then they'll speak.

 

Yes, here's hoping...

Yes, I surely hope so too Jayelles and here is hoping that when the case is solved that it will be that they find Madeline alive, living with a family somewhere in the wide world.

My personal "take" on the case has always been that Madeline was kidnapped and most likely "sold" to some family desperate to have a child of their own. In this unsolved heart-breaking case, I suppose this is the most hopeful scenario....That she is alive and with someone who is loving and nourishing her.

I agree with you about the dog videos presented here. They did not seem convincing to me....especially the video part that included the cars.

Voyager

 

That would be wonderful Voyager

 

If you were a juror, the dogs' video presented to you would be coupled with what the dogs found of course.

This is a judgment from a layperson's perspective. Hard to imagine that the (British!) owner of such highly reputed sniffer dogs would agreee to be part of a biased investigation, don't you think so?
Has the sniffer dog owner been asked to comment on the dogs' findings? It would interest me very much what he said.

The question to ask is how long can death scent last for a dog's nose to pick it up?
On WS it has been posted that Eddie and Keela recently found bones from children that had died in a childrens home from 40 years ago.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81934&page=2

Valid questions which I'm sure have been answered already on busy Madeleine forums like e. g. Websleuths. I'd suggest we ask them again there.

Kate only worked as a locum GP.

Imo there had to have been some forensic evidence for the PJ to come to this conclusion. The conclusion drawn from those forensic findings may have been wrong, but this doesn't mean the physical evidence wasn't there.

"Someone who knows what happened" and are maybe "keeping their mouth shut out of loyalty just now" makes it sound like someone close to the McCanns may have knowledge about the truth. Do you have a specific suspect in mind?

 

Which in this case was nothing.

I don't think the blatantly different behaviour of the dog handler can be justified in any situation. That's the whole point about testing of any sort - all conditions must be equal for the findings to be considered relevant.

Locum GPs can work full time. In the UK, it is also locums who work through the night and weekends. The service is called NHS 24. When someone dies under any situation, a GP has to come and confirm death. Even when putrified human remains are found, a doctor has to come and confirm death before the pathologist and crime scene officers can move in and do their stuff. The on-call doctor does this. GPs do not leave their surgery lists to do it. The on-call doctor would come from NHS 24 and is very likely to be a a locum. Kate said she had attended 6/8 ? deaths in a weeks preceeding their holiday. That is really not beyond the realms of possibility - especially in a city the size of Leicester which has 3/4 million inhabitants!

I won't be spending much time at Websleuths discussing this. I don't think it's a "busy" McCann forum. I think there are a few remaining McCann haters from the numerous anti-McCann forums which got closed down and they are now posting at Websleuths. There does only appear to be a handful of them posting on a few threads. However, they are posting misinformation and when you ask for a source for the misinformation they doa dodging act. It reminds me of Mame and the RST all over again.

These days I am busy with work and Mum (86) stays with me full-time now. I therefore have little spare time and when I do, I feel it would be a total waste arguing against the appalling misinformation being posted at Websleuths. I also dislike the atmosphere of hate there.

As I have already said, I don't dispute the fact that there could have been some physical evidence which the dogs alerted to but that does not appear to have been anything which proves the McCanns murderd her and transported her putrifying body a month later in a hire car. There are MANY explanations for the dog alerts. The dogs can alert to blood and cadaverine but it could belong to anyone. As I've said before, cadaverine is found in urine.

No Rashomon. I do not think it has to be someone close to the McCanns who is keeping their mouth shut out of loyalty because (as you know full and well) I do not think the McCanns killed their daughter or sold her or whatever other conclusions some people have leapt to. I think a stranger abducted Madeleine and that it is extremely unlikely that they operated entirely alone. That someone, somewhere knows or suspects what happened and that some day that person will speak and put the McCanns out of their misery.

No matter what way you look at this, a McCann did it scenario will only work if there is some degree of conspiracy. Logic does not support it.

1) They had a tiny window to operate in - about 2 hours. During that 2 hours, they would have had to kill their precious daughter, decide what to do about it, hide her body, get the twins settled for bed, get ready for dinner and then BE FIRST down to dinner. Eat dinner as if nothing happened and then discover her missing not on the first check, but the third one.

This requires conspiracy between Kate and Gerry McCann. Now, if they killed her - even accidentally, why go to all the bother of hiding the body and then "discovering" her during the meal? Why not keep the body in the flat and then get rid of it during the night when the had more time?

2) Madeleine was seen by Oldfield at (was it?) 6.30pm? She'd had her tea at the kids club at 5.30 so even supposing she was killed by her mother shortly after 5.30, Oldfield would have to be in on the conspiracy too in this scenario. This also assumes that he agreed immediately to cover up and spent no time arguing about it.

3) Where did they hide her body? McCann did it enthusiasts are very keen on the dog information and this relies on the McCanns having successfully hid her body for 21 days. Did they bury it and dig it up again so that they could take it away in a hire car and bury it again? Did they use their hands to dig? Soup spoons? A child's spade? Shovels are not normally on the inventory for holiday flats unless it's a ski resort which Praia is not.

4) 21 days - her body would be in a serious state of decomposition. The press were following the McCanns everywhere they went. When did they dig the body up and get it into the hire car? Experts have said that a 21 day old corpse would be smelled for 100 feet (or is it metres?). Even supposing they did manage to dig it up and get it into the hire car unnoticed, the smell would surely draw attention to it?

5) The freezer argument. They hid her in the freezer in the flat - except that the fridges in these flats are no more than ice compartments. You won't fit a hand in there let alone a whole body. So again we need a conspiracy. Who rented the freezer for the child's body?

Remember - it's the dog "evidence" which McCann theorists hold up as the proof of their involvement so you have to be able to explain all of the above adeqautely and quite frankly, I don't think you can.

There's also the fact that the McCanns remained at the resort for 4 months. Why do that if they were guilty of a such terrible crime? Unlike the Ramseys, they didn't just "get on with their lives".

If the McCanns had called off their meal that night instead of being first down to dinner, if they reported in the morning that Madeleine had been "taken" during the night - I'd probably have serious doubts too. However, nothing about their actions gives me any rise for suspicion about their involvement in her disappearance at all (and I am not talking about the fact they left her unattended - I mean apart from that).

But I've posted all of this before and I don't intend to waste time rehashing the same old arguments with people who can't get basic facts about the case right. People who think that when the same McCann story is reported differently in two different tabloids that it's the McCanns who can't get their facts straight rather than consider that it's the newspapers who are getting it wrong!

One consolation in all of this is that the hate stories aren't hurting the McCanns any more. They've moved on from that. The people who have had access to ALL the evidence and the facts of the case have agreed that there is no evidence with which to charge them for their daughter's murder.

In all of this, there has been one thing of which I've had no doubt. The Portuguese police came off looking very bad for all the leaks and false information. Possibly never in the history of Portuguese policing had it ever been so important to be proved right about something. Had there been the slightest shred of evidence that the McCanns did this, I am absolutely sure the Portuguese police would have seized it and used it to save face and reputation. I think it's very sad that their bitterness over being wrong may now be affecting their tourism. Portugal used to be an expensive resort to go to. This year, you can get a week in Portugal for less than a week in mainland Spain! I looked at vacations for Easter and couldn't get anything in Majorca but Portugal has loads of vacancies and loads of "deals".

I'd love to go to Portugal, I've never been there before but what holds me back from booking one of these deals is hearing stories about the locals intending to rip up the leaflets about the new Madeleine appeal. I feel that's very sinister and ugly and I'd be more relaxed about vacationing in a resort which put finding a missing child above bitterness for her parents. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way.

 

That's the big question - whether it was "nothing" or just not conlusive enough for definite identification. Just think of the Ramsey ransom note: handwriting expert Ubowski was of the opinion that she wrote it, but evidence fell short of reaching the 100 per cent conclusion that she was the writer.

Unless one works with those highly specialized dogs oneself, one can't say what the commands exactly mean.
"Blatantly different behavior of the dog handler" you said - different in relation to what?
Do you know whether the dog handler has been interviewed later?

I'm sure the handler of such higlhy qualified dogs saw to it that all conditions were equal.

Has Kate been asked whether she worked full time, and also through the night and weekends? Not very likely she would do all that, is it, with three small children at home. I have read she worked only part time, filling in when needed for colleages at holiday or ill.

There's two camps over there. Do you think that only one group "they" (= the anti-McCanns) posts misinformation?
As for the emotions, that just goes with it in such controversially discussed high-profile cases. I'm fairly callous to such attacks, also, these emotions can be quite interesting. For when one gets a very emotional attack-mode reply back, this often indicates one has hit on something, touched a sore spot or pointed out a hole in the other's argumentation.

It is of course a personal decision where one chooses to post, but Websleuths is one of the most reputable and respected true crime forums on the internet.
Like other forums, WS has a lot of readers who are no active posters, and posting reliable info may help those readers to get the picture.

For example, I have quite a bit of experience as a poster in Ramsey IDI nests. The reason I have registered there was not because I thought I would ever convince Mame & Co of Ramsey guilt - it is for those other readers, many of them on the fence. No representing the "other" side would mean letting Mame, Margoo & Co. run wild with their stuff, unchallenged.

"Murder" means a deliberate, planned homicide. Few parents murder their children, but as for snapping and losing it with tragic consequences for the child happens far more often.
I'm not saying this is what happened - merely pointing it out as a possibility.
As for transporting a putrefying body weeks afterward, I agree this is most unlikely.
If the McCanns were involved, my guess is the body had alread been disposed of before they showed up at the tapas bar.

Cadaverine smell lasts long. What was found in the hire car could have been from other evidence they later tried to get rid of, like clothes or rags with which they had tried to wipe off the blood.

It is logical to assume that there exist additional tests to make sure whether the cadaverine found is from urine or a dead body.

It does happen that people change their minds in those criminal case discussions. There is ample evidence of that on the various true crime boards.
In the Ramsey case, Mame for example was an RDI way back when. Others have switched from IDI to RDI.

Such a possibility has to be seen against the backdrop of what this person (or persons) would stand to LOSE when speaking up. It is mostly self-interest why people keep their mouths shut over such mattters.
So if speaking up would get this person into legal trouble, they won't do it imo.

You have left out of the equation the Tapas Nine's routine of taking turns checking on the children. This would shut down the option for the McCanns of keeping the dead body in the flat during that time.

Not necessarily. For people sometimes just don't remember the time correctly.
As for the timeline on that evening in the tapas bar, it looks like a jumbled mess and therefore pretty useless. No surprise there, for a larger group of people having a night out with wine flowing freely are no likely to remember accurately who did what and when.

The dog information says the body had to have been dead for one hour for the dogs to be able to pick up cadaver scent.
The body could long since have been disposed of and still cadaverine could have been present in the car from handling items associated with the removal of the body weeks earlier. One of Madeleine's t-shirts stuffed in the boot for example, with her hair sticking to it. Or a rag.

Their arguments don't come into play here since my theory is different.

Staying at the resort could give them the opportunity to get as much direct info as they can about the state of the investigation and if necessary, tailor their story to fit the evidence.

Again, evidence not sufficient to charge. Doesn't necessarily mean they are innocent. We see in the Ramsey case how little public 'exoneration' can mean.

But have they been wrong? To conclude from the sad fact that an investigation ended up on the rocky road to nowhere that the suspects must be innocent is a non-sequitur imo.

I was there once in 1975, with Interrail. London - Amsterdam - Paris - Lisbon - I loved it! Those were the bygone days of my youth where I could sit in a train for 50 hours.

The issue is what ARE the basic facts. That's what people are disputing over on the boards.

 

rashomon wrote:

Exactly rashomon.

Little

 

Sorry Rash, this is my last reply for the time being. I really am not interested in hashing and rehashing speculative arguments.

You cannot compare a sniffer dog with a human document handler. The equivalent would be Ubowski saying "Yes, I am thinking something" and then being unable to tell us what. As I have say many times before, the dogs alert is not enough on its own. The car was gone over with a fine tooth comb and nothing was found to incriminate the McCanns. You can argue till the cows come home just how much of nothing was found but at the end of the day it wasn't enough for any charge to be brought against them period. No amount of wishful thinking will make it so.

Explained above in detail.

Don't know. One would assume he was, but unless he has doggie mind reading capabilities, I doubt he'd be able to elaborate. Even if he tried, I doubt it would be admissable in court!

Thanks to the video we can all see that he didn't. Do I need to repeat?

1) The McCann car was the only one he stopped at.
2) The McCann car was the only one he repeatedly called his dog back to
3) The McCann car was the only one he tapped.

Put yourself in the McCann's shoes. If this was a video of YOUR car in a lineup for some crime you didn't commit, would you be satisified with it?

Kate worked part time. That's an established fact. I haven't read anywhere that she only filled in for sick leave, just that she was a locum. In my experience, when you call a doctor out you are more likely to get a locum than your own GP. I would say that makes it more likely that a locum would be called to certify death since in this country, unless you are at death's door, you are expected to get yourself down to the doctor's surgery.

I see one hate camp and a single soul who is a voice of reason. It is very disturbing.

The McCann forum is certainly not. I see some familiar faces from a forum which was closed down for legal reasons. To me they are like football hooligans. No real interest in football, just there to cause trouble.

And you think they were able to calmly eat a meal and participate in normal conversation with their friends? That Gerry would be able to stroll up to the apartment and then stop and have a friendly chat with an acquaintance?

I don't think so. Cadaverine is some sort of chemical molecule. If found in isolation, I'm not sure they'd be able to tell whether it came from urine or a putrifying body. I'm guessing because I am not a scientist. However. I am thinking salt. If salt were found on a surface, would they be able to tell if it came from salt water originally as opposed to a salt cellar (sp?)

Yep. Self interest is entirely my motivation for not getting involved in the discussions over there. I am concerned about my sanity. At the end of the day, if these people want to live in their little worlds of fantasy, why should I risk my sanity to save them from themselves

Woops, my previous comment is misplaced. I thought you were still talking about me not wanting to participate at WS.

No I think someone will speak up in the McCann case. People eventually do in such cases. Someone will grow a conscience when a relationship sours. They'd probably get immunity for speaking.

Not if the McCanns called off the meal. That IMO would have been essential if they'd just killed one of their children. Even if one of them had called off. A simple headache would have been enough.

There is nothing suspicious about Madeleine's clothes with hair sticking on it. It is the most likely explanation for a dog alert.

No comment.

The Ramsey case is nothing like the McCann case. People are innocent until they are proven guilty period. I'm sorry rash but that's a terrible thing to say. It flies in the face of any sense of justice.

On the other hand, perhaps a spell in a McCann viper's nest is just what I need to inspire the character for my psychopathic killer in my novel

 

http://www.stibbards.co.uk/infopage.htm

 

I missed this. It's dated January 2009

Link