What do you think happened to Madeleine?

[Mrs. B]

No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:

"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?

[AnneGuedes]

No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:

"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?

Mr Grime doesn't say uncorroborated alerts must be discarded, Mr Harrison says the dog is EVRD, it means he detects molecules, no collectable substance, i.e no possible forensic test. It's intelligence and a curious mind is founded to try and find some explanation.

[DCI]

No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:

"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?

Good question, Mrs B.

Concidering the flower beds were the other side of the wall.
Then again, how many other dogs could have cocked their leg up, in that area?.

Don't forget there were eight other dogs involved in the search, months before Grime turned up. Can't remember now, how many dog hairs were found in 5A, along with the cigarette ash, from GNR chaps.

[Benice]

It is my understanding from reading the police statements that some of the so called Tapas "friends" were no more than what I would call acquaintances of the couple. The idea that anyone could convince a group of friends to cover up the death of a child is implausible enough, so where does that leave people you've only recently met & don't know very well?

This is true Mrs. B.  Also the reason sometimes put forward that the group would agree because they were scared of being accused of 'neglect' for leaving their sleeping children  is also completely illogical as the first thing they all did was to tell the police that that they were dining at the Tapas and returning to the apartments at intervals to check on their sleeping children!     And what about Diane Webster - she had no children to be responsible for?   And would Fiona urge her own elderly mother, her children's grandmother to put herself in the position of risking arrest and imprisonment for being an accomplice in the disposal of a child's body?  Not a chance.   IMO

 


 

[Tim Invictus]

If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.

The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.

So, why do you think the McCanns' friends have all decided to support Kate and Gerry in this elaborate cover up?  Would you support an acquaintance who had accidentally killed their chid in a fit of rage?

Where did I say I think McCann's friends knew and were party to a cover up? I didn't and I don't!

 8-)(--)

[Mrs. B]

Pardon, but how on earth do you go about to find an explanation for uncorroborated dog alerts? As they are uncorroborated, nobody can explain what the dog alerted to, we simply don't know & most likely, we never will. What we're left with is speculation, which is OK, as long as one is aware that's all it is.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Tim Invictus
Where did I say I think McCann's friends knew and were party to a cover up? I didn't and I don't!

Tim Invictus
I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.

[AnneGuedes]

The "flowerbed" (a bougainvilliers) isn't visible from the street. One passing the grade could have his/her eye attracted, at night, by a whitish form lying there.

[Mo Stache]

No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:

"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?

Mr Grime doesn't say uncorroborated alerts must be discarded, Mr Harrison says the dog is EVRD, it means he detects molecules, no collectable substance, i.e no possible forensic test. It's intelligence and a curious mind is founded to try and find some explanation.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no forensic test to substantiate the dog's alerts? And because there is no "possible forensic test" to determine the reliability of the dogs alerts, one must rely on "a curious mind is founded to try and find some explanation". No need for forensics then, just a need for someone who will ask the 'correct questions' and supply the 'alerts as standalone proof positive of guilt' to fit the anti McCann's theory. 

[Mrs. B]

It is my understanding from reading the police statements that some of the so called Tapas "friends" were no more than what I would call acquaintances of the couple. The idea that anyone could convince a group of friends to cover up the death of a child is implausible enough, so where does that leave people you've only recently met & don't know very well?

This is true Mrs. B.  Also the reason sometimes put forward that the group would agree because they were scared of being accused of 'neglect' for leaving their sleeping children  is also completely illogical as the first thing they all did was to tell the police that that they were dining at the Tapas and returning to the apartments at intervals to check on their sleeping children!     And what about Diane Webster - she had no children to be responsible for?   And would Fiona urge her own elderly mother, her children's grandmother to put herself in the position of risking arrest and imprisonment for being an accomplice in the disposal of a child's body?  Not a chance.   IMO

 

I agree. As far as I am concerned Mrs. Webster is as an independent witness as you will get. She had no dealings with the McCann family before the holiday AFAIK & no reason to cover anything up at all.

[Tim Invictus]

If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.

The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.

As this is a 'Justice' forum and you are a senior member, perhaps you would share the logic and evidence that let's you reach that libellous conclusion.

The question was 'what do you THINK happened' to Madeliene.  I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion and there cannot possibly be anything libelous in that.

As for logic and evidence; my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion.  You know damn well I don't have any evidence to prove what my opinion is just as you cannot prove my opinion is wrong!

[amaraltheofficeboy]

my opinion is logical to me as I do not believe the McCanns and evidence is not a prerequisite to having an opinion

that will certainly make a few people very happy

it is what some people have relied on for over 6 years

[Mrs. B]

No, according to Mr. Grime, uncorroborated dog alerts do not need explaining, please see below:

"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

ETA If one needs to "explain" the dog alerts, why not start with the alert to the flower bed? Surely nobody would claim someone left a "cadaver" there in full view of the entire resort?

Good question, Mrs B.

Concidering the flower beds were the other side of the wall.
Then again, how many other dogs could have cocked their leg up, in that area?.

Don't forget there were eight other dogs involved in the search, months before Grime turned up. Can't remember now, how many dog hairs were found in 5A, along with the cigarette ash, from GNR chaps.

That's true. And after that debacle the apartment was released to be let out no less than four times to different sets of holiday makers before the dogs were brought in & forensic samples taken....& people wonder why there wasn't much forensic evidence found.

[AnneGuedes]

Pardon, but how on earth do you go about to find an explanation for uncorroborated dog alerts? As they are uncorroborated, nobody can explain what the dog alerted to, we simply don't know & most likely, we never will. What we're left with is speculation, which is OK, as long as one is aware that's all it is.

Oh yes, pure speculation, based though on the fact Eddie is an EVRD (that provides speculating with a certain justification). Mr Grime, in the film, even says that Eddie's alert in the parents' bedroom doesn't necessarily indicate a corpse was there, a draught could have sent the volatile molecules, trapped in the corner.
When someone disappears leaving no trace, no sign, no clue, one is entitled to wonder why the EVRD alerted in this flat and not in the others. Wonder, nothing else.

[icabodcrane]

If I had to place a large bet, I would place it on Maddie being killed in a fit of temper by Kate. Not deliberately killed but probably by having her head banged against a wall or similar. I believe Gerry knows exactly what happened and is 'standing by' his wife knowing she didn't mean to kill Maddie. I believe the Tapas bar saga is nothing more than an elaborate coverup.

The question was 'what do you think happened'; well that's my opinion. I hope I am wrong and Maddie is alive and well somewhere being cared for and loved.

That is a possibility, yes ...  and it offers a rational explanation for the window/shutters being opened from the inside  ( staged abduction ) , whilst also making sense of the dogs' alerts

Could you perhaps offer a rational explanation for why the McCanns' friends would agree to support Kate after she killed her child in a fit of rage?

No I can't

As I said earlier in the thread,  every theory/possibility throws up more questions than answers

Therefore on balance how plausible do you think Tim Invictus' theory actually is, bearing in mind it relies on the complicity of ALL the McCanns' friends, who would ALL have to buy into the idea of protecting a violent child killer?

Why would all of the McCann friends had to have been complicit ?