The timeline revisited

[Vertigo Swirl]

Given those words:

 "that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was".

It doesn't seem that the former had been rejected. There must have been some rationale for the Met to consider the possibility that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment. They don't consider scenarios without some reason just for the sake of it.

Perhaps you’d like to have a go at figuring out their rationale then?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Perhaps you’d like to have a go at figuring out their rationale then?

Well I can't see what else it could be other than the indicative dog alerts and the subsequent material collected under the tiles???? Can you think why the Met were considering the possibility that she died in the apartment. Also such a possibility would generate questions of a motive. A paedophile, imo, would not have killed Madeleine in the apartment and then carried her out.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well I can't see what else it could be other than the indicative dog alerts and the subsequent material collected under the tiles???? Can you think why the Met were considering the possibility that she died in the apartment. Also such a possibility would generate questions of a motive. A paedophile, imo, would not have killed Madeleine in the apartment and then carried her out.

Certainly not after 90 minutes, no.  So if the Met ever took the dog alerts seriously as you suggest then they must have been focusing their attention on the parents, yet the Met is always being criticised by sceptics for obeying orders not to investigate any other theory than abduction so how do you square that circle?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Certainly not after 90 minutes, no.  So if the Met ever took the dog alerts seriously as you suggest then they must have been focusing their attention on the parents, yet the Met is always being criticised by sceptics for obeying orders not to investigate any other theory than abduction so how do you square that circle?

It's not me that has to square the circle - it is the Met. I could speculate if you like but there doesn't seem to be much point. We know their focus shifted away from Tannerman and towards Smithman - maybe they came across evidence which shifted focus in other ways and led them to believe there was a possibility that Madeleine was dead when she was removed from the apartment.

I still believe Colin Sutton is correct when he criticises the initial brief of OG, and its initial focus. (cite provided earlier on this topic)

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's not me that has to square the circle - it is the Met. I could speculate if you like but there doesn't seem to be much point. We know their focus shifted away from Tannerman and towards Smithman - maybe they came across evidence which shifted focus in other ways and led them to believe there was a possibility that Madeleine was dead when she was removed from the apartment.

I still believe Colin Sutton is correct when he criticises the initial brief of OG, and its initial focus. (cite provided earlier on this topic)

No, the Met doesn’t have to do anything to satisfy your curiosity, it just has to get on with the job of solving the case. It is obvious however that the parents have never been suspects since Day One of Operation Grange and therefore as the dog alerts only support parental involvement they surely must not have been considered relevant to the Met’s investigation.

[Mr Gray]

Well I can't see what else it could be other than the indicative dog alerts and the subsequent material collected under the tiles???? Can you think why the Met were considering the possibility that she died in the apartment. Also such a possibility would generate questions of a motive. A paedophile, imo, would not have killed Madeleine in the apartment and then carried her out.

if the dogs had never been to Luz...the possibility that MM died in the apartment would still have been valid.
I think theres no doubt the germans have proof she didnt .

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

No, the Met doesn’t have to do anything to satisfy your curiosity, it just has to get on with the job of solving the case. It is obvious however that the parents have never been suspects since Day One of Operation Grange and therefore as the dog alerts only support parental involvement they surely must not have been considered relevant to the Met’s investigation.

Surely you must believe the dog alerts might "support" some other party's involvement?

You say that OG never suspected the parents. We know that they were considering the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment. That must mean they considered the possibility that someone else (not the parents) killed Madeleine in the apartment (or that she died there accidentally). I don't see how you can say; "the dog alerts only support parental involvement". That's after all is what Amaral was saying!! The fact is that the dog alerts are just indicative that forensic evidence may be retrieved from certain areas that might possibly aid the investigation.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Surely you must believe the dog alerts might "support" some other party's involvement?

You say that the OG never suspected the parents. We know that they were considering the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment. That must mean they considered the possibility that someone else (not the parents) killed Madeleine in the apartment (or that she died there accidentally). I don't see how you can say; "the dog alerts only support parental involvement". That's after all is what Amaral was saying!! The fact is that the dog alerts are just indicative that forensic evidence may be retrieved from certain areas that might possibly aid the investigation.

Using logic and common sense it is impossible to derive a plausible scenario who allows for both death in the apartment and non-parental involvement.  By all means try to prove me wrong.

[Mr Gray]

Surely you must believe the dog alerts might "support" some other party's involvement?

You say that the OG never suspected the parents. We know that they were considering the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment. That must mean they considered the possibility that someone else (not the parents) killed Madeleine in the apartment (or that she died there accidentally). I don't see how you can say; "the dog alerts only support parental involvement". That's after all is what Amaral was saying!! The fact is that the dog alerts are just indicative that forensic evidence may be retrieved from certain areas that might possibly aid the investigation.

Any alert that was to cadaver would implicate the parents. if MMwas murdered in the apt and removed then there would be no time for the scent to develop.

[Carana]

Well I can't see what else it could be other than the indicative dog alerts and the subsequent material collected under the tiles???? Can you think why the Met were considering the possibility that she died in the apartment. Also such a possibility would generate questions of a motive. A paedophile, imo, would not have killed Madeleine in the apartment and then carried her out.

There wasn't anything significant found under the tiles, though. And I really don't want to spark another dog conversation.

It be simply that there was no evidence of her having left the apartment alive (eg a CCTV camera showing her walking or gesturing in the vicinity within the time frame), but then there was no evidence that she'd died there, either.

[Carana]

Using logic and common sense it is impossible to derive a plausible scenario who allows for both death in the apartment and non-parental involvement.  By all means try to prove me wrong.

A burglary gone wrong?

[Vertigo Swirl]

A burglary gone wrong?

As cadaver odour takes at the very least 60 minutes (though actually usually at least 90 minutes) to develop to a point where it is detectable by a dog I don’t see how “burglary gone wrong” could fit into the timeline do you?  And then there are the alerts to the McCanns property and car….

[Carana]

As cadaver odour takes at the very least 60 minutes (though actually usually at least 90 minutes) to develop to a point where it is detectable by a dog I don’t see how “burglary gone wrong” could fit into the timeline do you?  And then there are the alerts to the McCanns property and car….

The alerts could have been coincidental (no one really know what decomposition odour Eddie reacted to), possibly even some irrelevant scent left by subsequent occupants.

[Snowgirl]

The alerts could have been coincidental (no one really know what decomposition odour Eddie reacted to), possibly even some irrelevant scent left by subsequent occupants.

You do this dog great injustice if you think that Eddie would alert to " an irrelevant scent" .

[Mr Gray]

You do this dog great injustice if you think that Eddie would alert to " an irrelevant scent" .

In Jersey Eddie alerted to a coconut.  According to an official report the coconut was moved to another location so Eddie could confirm his alert... He again alerted to the coconut