Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?

[pathfinder73]

OK. If we are in agreement that cadaver odour can permeate items such as cotton clothing (see the German carpet squares test), then by the same means, Smithmans hands must have been contaminated when carrying a corpse away from 5a. Said corpse had already left its odour in various places at 5a.
Smithman carried that corpse for a minimum of 3 minutes, possibly longer, so plenty long enough to establish contamination on his hands.
After 10pm:-
Gerry touched the shutters
Gerry touched his phone
Gerry put his phone in his trouser pockets.
Presumably Gerry touched the patio door/front door handles.
Gerry probably touched a whole host of other things after handling his phone.

No alerts, P/F. Not one.

As soon as Eddie got to that apartment his behaviour changed. That is in the reports. Eddie only bark alerts when he is certain so he naturally finds the strongest scent when he is certain. Two places he alerted - behind sofa and at wardrobe.

[Anna]

Please return to the topic of the thread

[Anna]

bar starting a new thread, I thought this to be ok to post here, after having searched for an "evidence of abduction" thread but not finding one...Mods are welcome to move to one if one exists

I do believe that the “Evidence of abduction” have already been discussed  here….  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.msg188780#msg188780

This thread however is related to “Any hard evidence in the case” Not necessarily associated to an abduction. Just any hard evidence that may indicate the possible cause of Madeleine’s disappearance.
Please feel free to move your post to the link, that I have suggested.

[ferryman]

As soon as Eddie got to that apartment his behaviour changed. That is in the reports. Eddie only bark alerts when he is certain so he naturally finds the strongest scent when he is certain. Two places he alerted - behind sofa and at wardrobe.

No it didn't.

Eddie sat and waited for Grime to take off his lead.

[mercury]

I do believe that the “Evidence of abduction” have already been discussed  here….  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.msg188780#msg188780

This thread however is related to “Any hard evidence in the case” Not necessarily associated to an abduction. Just any hard evidence that may indicate the possible cause of Madeleine’s disappearance.
Please feel free to move your post to the link, that I have suggested.

Thanks Anna

[Anna]

You're welcome, mercury

[mercury]

No it didn't.

Eddie sat and waited for Grime to take off his lead.

you are wrong, unless you are accusing the dog handler of lyng

Just read the last large para before the end (IF you are interested in facts that is)

[ferryman]

you are wrong, unless you are accusing the dog handler of lyng

Just read (IF you are interested in facts that is)

I watched the video and I am not wrong.

[mercury]

I watched the video and I am not wrong.

A) you are accusing the dog handler of lies
B) you are not a dog handler so can hardly have a relevant opinion?

[Anna]

@1.56
Probably off topic, but might settle an argument

[mercury]

@1.56
Probably off topic, but might settle an argument

I notice the front door was already open so Eddie couldn't have done anything on opening the front door that we can see there

Hmmm but he is a dog handler and knows his animals reactions

Mr Grime knew footage was being recorded so why lie? as has been levelled at him. I don't think he did, I believe he is first and foremost a dog handler and not an English language professor

Many are willing to excuse huge discrepancies in the McCann story with a whole list of excuses, see?

[pathfinder73]

No it didn't.

Eddie sat and waited for Grime to take off his lead.

He tried to get inside whilst still on the lead.

13:20

[Brietta]

Some people assert that the continual comings and goings that we know about dictates that the theory of an intruder taking Madeleine is ruled out entirely because there was such a small window of opportunity.

These are the people we know about and I would be very surprised if there were not more people passing the apartment than those.

For example Mr and Mrs Moyes do not appear in the files ... although they entered the the building from a different route ... they were out and about at the requisite time.

If there were other passers by the window of opportunity is even shorter for a severely injured little girl dressed in light coloured pyjamas to lie unseen at the bottom of the stairs.

Had she been seen ... the first port of call for anyone seeking to contact emergency services would have been reception at the tapas restaurant or the restaurant itself.

IMO no-one would have attempted to move her for any reason.

[G-Unit]

Some people assert that the continual comings and goings that we know about dictates that the theory of an intruder taking Madeleine is ruled out entirely because there was such a small window of opportunity.

These are the people we know about and I would be very surprised if there were not more people passing the apartment than those.

For example Mr and Mrs Moyes do not appear in the files ... although they entered the the building from a different route ... they were out and about at the requisite time.

If there were other passers by the window of opportunity is even shorter for a severely injured little girl dressed in light coloured pyjamas to lie unseen at the bottom of the stairs.

Had she been seen ... the first port of call for anyone seeking to contact emergency services would have been reception at the tapas restaurant or the restaurant itself.

IMO no-one would have attempted to move her for any reason.

It's probably less likely to be seen than an abductor carrying a child, opening shutters etc.

[Brietta]

Sorry, Brietta, it's difficult to convey meaning sometimes. I wasn't being aggressive, it was bewilderment as his theory was different so had no relevance. I'll take the opportunity to apologise for misunderstanding some of your posts too. I often read them as condescending and I'm sure that's not what you are intending to convey.

The problem with his theory was not that it "was different" but that it was entirely wrong.  He should have known that trying to fit the evidence to any theory whatsoever was an elementary mistake to make in any investigation.

It was right and proper to initially investigate those closest to the missing child but to keep all other avenues clear and to assess evidence as it came in.
There was no allowance made for technical errors on the part of his chain of command which had there been evidence of an intruder meant it would have been would have been completely destroyed.
We will never know the answer to that one.


Thank you for your kind apology it is much appreciated.

Please don't apologise for misunderstanding some of my posts though; if they are coming over as condescending ... it is probably because they are.