The second error is your claim that "the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann (sic) himself." You are wrong. What he claimed was that he believed it was a possibility.
There is no excuse really for your making such crucial errors with regard to this aspect of the case because this has been explained clearly many times here and elsewhere.
Find where Mr Smith uses the word possibility. His exact words were:
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
The McCanns (sic) and their friends did what any normal parents and friends would do in the event of a child disappearing. They searched the apartment thoroughly before then involving the police. I am sorry you cannot understand this but it is normal.
And you are conveniently forgetting that two of the specific disturbances identified in the crime scene were done by the local police. Cigarette ash and dog hairs both from the GNR were significant problems for the crime scene investigators.
Searched the apartment thoroughly? What about the one solid opportunity for forensic examination, the window and shutters?
From a recent Blackmith Post:
Upon discovery of the scene Gerry immediately "lowered the shutter" (Madeleine page 73), destroying any possibility of load forces test or other aperture dependent tests, including visibility tests, producing any meaningful results. The police have never known how far the shutter was actually open.
The other area for study was, of course, laboratory investigation to determine whether the shutters were opened from inside or out. So what did Gerry McCann, keeper of the "crime scene", do? He "rushed outside" and pushed the shutters upwards, thus destroying at a stroke all possibility of materials analysis: thenceforth any lab results could be put down to Gerry and were therefore forensically worthless. Mathew Oldfield's 9.30 PM evidence at once became incapable of assessment against the facts. And just to complete this triumph of evidence preservation, Kate McCann, as well as "throwing cupboards and wardrobes open" – making it impossible for police to assess at a glance any signs of intrusion or struggle – handled the window, presumably to close it.
This resulted in:
On May 4 and subsequent evenings video/DVD recording from outside and from the bedroom doorway at corresponding and sunset-corrected times would provide court exhibit evidence of the following:
The light entering the bedroom from outside
The obviousness or otherwise of the open shutters to passers-by on the street
Visibility in the room at the appropriate corrected times and
Whether, therefore, Mathew Oldfield's claimed inability to describe the lighting conditions and shutter state was credible or obviously untrue.
Finally, knowing how open the window was would enable controlled testing to establish the feasibility of the famous curtain blow and slamming bedroom door (with patio doors already closed) described by Kate McCann.
The police never even saw this evidence. It was gone before they arrived.
That does not necessarily mean it was a deliberate act to cover their own wrong-doing: what matters though is the effect, not the intention. Perhaps readers can forgive the sense of outrage that sometimes comes smoking off the Bureau pages, after six wearying years of having to make these irrefutable points in the face of public misinformation and denial. They destroyed all the evidence before the police arrived!
And it's the police who are supposed to have contaminated the apartment, the "crime scene".
Correct. The dog alerts were not backed up by any forensics. They were never corroborated. That is one factor which led the AG to point out that there is absolutely no evidence of any crime by the McCanns.
But they were an indication nonetheless, a tool used by Police all over the world. And we all know why there was no evidence? Because the investigation was disturbed. Who disturbed it? Why the McCann's and their cohorts.
Till anyone provides any evidence at all that something happened to Madeleine within the actual apartment then it is sheer speculation. I prefer evidence and facts.
No the dogs provided an indication, which is more than there is to support an abduction. However of course the dogs indications could equally relate to an abductor having committed an act which would cause the dogs to alert.
Why simply dismiss the dogs findings because it is perceived that it implies guilt against the Mccann's? Why couldn't an abductor have killed the child?
