Does Madeleine have the right to be found?

[Robittybob1]

Didn't Kate herself think the open window could have been a red herring.

Unless the person has a key they can't leave by the front door and close it behind them. 

[Robittybob1]

Come on, it was supposed to be wide open. You don't to touch it to make sure.

She admits touching it before they went to  the Tapas Restaurant.

[jassi]

She admits touching it before they went to  the Tapas Restaurant.

Right 

[G-Unit]

She admits touching it before they went to  the Tapas Restaurant.

Does she. I thought she never touched it since they arrived?

The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

[slartibartfast]

"You are suggesting that a couple’s child dies and their first thought is, “must get another one, oh look there is a girl of a similar age.”"
I know for certain that I have never thought that or even expressed in writing a closely worded statement like that. 
You might think that I might be suggesting that but that is untrue, I'm not.

So what are you suggesting that is different from my summary?

[Robittybob1]

So what are you suggesting that is different from my summary?

That is a tricky question but I have never thought what you said, I know that for certain.  Now like 2 and 1/2 years ago I thought this other couple were "forced by circumstances" into taking Madeleine.
What do I think now?  Maybe something along the same lines.
I think I'm working on a theoretical scenario something like this:
Their child dies, it is investigated and the OC MW management agree to keep it confidential.  Later the body of their child goes missing.  They blame the McCanns so they keep hold of Madeleine.  Once they have done that they can't get out of the problem.   Something like that.

[G-Unit]

That is a tricky question but I have never thought what you said, I know that for certain.  Now like 2 and 1/2 years ago I thought this other couple were "forced by circumstances" into taking Madeleine.
What do I think now?  Maybe something along the same lines.
I think I'm working on a theoretical scenario something like this:
Their child dies, it is investigated and the OC MW management agree to keep it confidential.  Later the body of their child goes missing.  They blame the McCanns so they keep hold of Madeleine.  Once they have done that they can't get out of the problem.   Something like that.

So a child dies, the parents are allowed to keep the body but then someone steals it? You have a fertile imagination in my opinion.

[Robittybob1]

So a child dies, the parents are allowed to keep the body but then someone steals it? You have a fertile imagination in my opinion.

I have the basic outline of how it could happen, but whether it did happen that way is practically impossible to prove.  But if you were to say the cadaver odour in the apartment was due to this other cadaver, you would have to have a mechanism to get it in there, and later to get it out.  And to have a method of getting Madeleine out and then for Madeleine to have been removed from the vicinity all for good reasons.

I don't imagine any event in this scenario being a truly criminal act. Maybe even the adoption of Madeleine could be justified, I don't know, but Kate was willing to forgive the abductor wasn't she?  How could all that happen for an altruistic reason?

It could even be that the PJ are aware of the whole scenario but can't prove it.  Solving the case depended entirely on someone making a confession (i.e. owning up to the non criminal acts).

One of the reasons I consider it possible that GA knows what happened is that IMO Eddie alerted twice in the dining room at the villa but neither are recorded as an alert.  Then after that it was several days later that the hire car was taken for  testing but only after the trip to Huelva was allowed to happen.  Amaral has suggested (somehow) they were carrying a body on that trip, was he right? 

But that makes it confusing for at times he says they got rid of the body by cremation.  Was he also thinking of the possibility of two bodies?

[jassi]

I have the basic outline of how it could happen, but whether it did happen that way is practically impossible to prove.  But if you were to say the cadaver odour in the apartment was due to this other cadaver, you would have to have a mechanism to get it in there, and later to get it out.  And to have a method of getting Madeleine out and then for Madeleine to have been removed from the vicinity all for good reasons.

I don't imagine any event in this scenario being a truly criminal act. Maybe even the adoption of Madeleine could be justified, I don't know, but Kate was willing to forgive the abductor wasn't she?  How could all that happen for an altruistic reason?

It could even be that the PJ are aware of the whole scenario but can't prove it.  Solving the case depended entirely on someone making a confession (i.e. owning up to the non criminal acts).

One of the reasons I consider it possible that GA knows what happened is that IMO Eddie alerted twice in the dining room at the villa but neither are recorded as an alert.  Then after that it was several days later that the hire car was taken for  testing but only after the trip to Huelva was allowed to happen.  Amaral has suggested (somehow) they were carrying a body on that trip, was he right? 

But that makes it confusing for at times he says they got rid of the body by cremation.  Was he also thinking of the possibility of two bodies?

It seems to me that you are inventing a scenario in an attempt to explain why the dog alerts weren't due to Madeleine.
To paraphrase Gerry, " Its just ludicrous"

[Robittybob1]

It seems to me that you are inventing a scenario in an attempt to explain why the dog alerts weren't due to Madeleine.
To paraphrase Gerry, " Its just ludicrous"

You should know that when a dog alerts it is not alerting to a specific person.  It is not like a tracker dog looking for a particular person's scent, but a species specific odour.  All we are told is that a human cadaver is likely to have been recently in the apartment (IMO).
It could be Madeleine or someone else.
With the time it takes for cadaver odour to develop you need to consider how long had the cadaver been deceased.  If Gerry saw Madeleine at 9:05 it would be unlikely that Madeleine's body developed detectable cadaver odour if she was removed from the apartment before or around 10:00 PM.

The science of that suggests to me the cadaver odour detected in the apartment was from someone else.  It is science as far as I can see, not me "inventing a scenario".

[Brietta]

You should know that when a dog alerts it is not alerting to a specific person.  It is not like a tracker dog looking for a particular person's scent, but a species specific odour.  All we are told is that a human cadaver is likely to have been recently in the apartment (IMO).
It could be Madeleine or someone else.
With the time it takes for cadaver odour to develop you need to consider how long had the cadaver been deceased.  If Gerry saw Madeleine at 9:05 it would be unlikely if Madeleine's body to developed detectable cadaver odour if she was removed from the apartment before or around 10:00 PM.

The science of that suggests to me the cadaver odour detected in the apartment was from someone else.  It is science as far as I can see, not me "inventing a scenario".

Martin Grime said 'suggestive of cadaver odour' to be determined by forensic testing ... positive source in the vehicle was not Madeleine's ... there was no confirmation of 'cadaver' anywhere else.
I believe that equates with a false positive as far as the reaction of the dog is concerned.  Therefore an irrelevance.

[Robittybob1]

Martin Grime said 'suggestive of cadaver odour' to be determined by forensic testing ... positive source in the vehicle was not Madeleine's ... there was no confirmation of 'cadaver' anywhere else.
I believe that equates with a false positive as far as the reaction of the dog is concerned.  Therefore an irrelevance.

That doesn't work in this case where we don't have the DNA profile of this theorised unknown person.  We could say it was unlikely to be Madeleine as her DNA wasn't found but DNA was found alright but we don't know who's DNA it was.

[Eleanor]

That doesn't work in this case where we don't have the DNA profile of this theorised unknown person.  We could say it was unlikely to be Madeleine as her DNA wasn't found but DNA was found alright but we don't know who's DNA it was.

It could be the Abductor.

[Lace]

But there were only one set of fingerprints  found on the window,those of Kate McCann  ?

Now to me that would be suspicious,  only Kate McCann's fingerprints on the window,  didn't the maid clean the windows?   That sounds as though the intruder wiped the windows down.   Didn't the McCann's say they closed the windows afterwards?

[Snowgirl]

Do you actually need to touch a closed window to clean it?


Report by Joao Barreiras, Assistant Specialist 2007/05/04
 
At apartment 5A, Ocean Club: Inside glass of the window in the children's bedroom. Five prints were recovered; three of the middle finger of the left hand and two of the index finger of the left hand of the mother of the missing child.