Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?

[Vertigo Swirl]

To be honest I don't think carlymichelle's post needed an IMO, since I became interested in the case and have looked at forums, twitter etc the dogs seem to be the main point discussed by the supporters, that and of course Goncalo Amaral and the sceptics themselves. All IMO but based on my views of forums etc.

So, it's a proven fact that "supporters have always been afraid of the dogs" is it?  What insulting rot.

[Sunny]

So, it's a proven fact that "supporters have always been afraid of the dogs" is it?  What insulting rot.

If supporters are not "afraid of the dogs" why all the threads and posts about them and all trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs. This thread is just one example of my "proof".

[Robittybob1]

If supporters are not "afraid of the dogs" why all the threads and posts about them and all trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs. This thread is just one example of my "proof".

Well they are hard to explain away.

[Mr Gray]

If supporters are not "afraid of the dogs" why all the threads and posts about them and all trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs. This thread is just one example of my "proof".

This thread is no proof of supporters being afraid of the dog alerts and I think it's a pretty silly suggestion... And a baseless accusation....

[Mr Gray]

Well they are hard to explain away.

I think they are quite easy to explain away.... Grime himself tells us the alerts could be the result of several different  scenarios... Shame he didn't list them

[Vertigo Swirl]

If supporters are not "afraid of the dogs" why all the threads and posts about them and all trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs. This thread is just one example of my "proof".

It's as daft as suggesting sceptics are afraid of the McCanns because they start so many threads trying to discredit their story.  It is pure opinion, to which you are all entitled but don't please dress it up as fact, or excuse the lack of "IMOs" that this forum sets such great store by.

[Mr Gray]

It shows how little sceptics understand if they think supporters are frightened if the dogs... It really is a ridiculous suggestion... Imo

[Sunny]

It's as daft as suggesting sceptics are afraid of the McCanns because they start so many threads trying to discredit their story.  It is pure opinion, to which you are all entitled but don't please dress it up as fact, or excuse the lack of "IMOs" that this forum sets such great store by.

As far as I have seen the supporters have a limited choice of things to discredit and very little to point to abduction. The sceptics on the other had appear to have a wider choice of things to discuss and possibly as you say "discredit".

Remember one poster on here has directly accused Martin Grime of not being honest. The post may be gone but the intention was there. I have also seen other posters particularly a couple on twitter calling Martin Grime a "liar".

I stand by what I said although perhaps I wouldn't have said "afraid" I would say that supporters are keen to discredit the dogs because they point away from their approved abduction scenario.

With this in mind though why can't supporters see there is a possibility that the abductor accidentally may have killed Madeleine then decided to remove the body so they wouldn't be found guilty for murder.  That is a possibility however remote IMO.

[jassi]

As far as I have seen the supporters have a limited choice of things to discredit and very little to point to abduction. The sceptics on the other had appear to have a wider choice of things to discuss and possibly as you say "discredit".

Remember one poster on here has directly accused Martin Grime of not being honest. The post may be gone but the intention was there. I have also seen other posters particularly a couple on twitter calling Martin Grime a "liar".

I stand by what I said although perhaps I wouldn't have said "afraid" I would say that supporters are keen to discredit the dogs because they point away from their approved abduction scenario.

With this in mind though why can't supporters see there is a possibility that the abductor accidentally may have killed Madeleine then decided to remove the body so they wouldn't be found guilty for murder.  That is a possibility however remote IMO.

The timing is wrong for this.

An alleged abductor was in and out in 'no time at all', so not sufficient time for a body to lie anywhere and leave a cadaver scent.

That is why the dogs must be dissed . A cadaver scent  points directly at parental involvement.

[Mr Gray]

As far as I have seen the supporters have a limited choice of things to discredit and very little to point to abduction. The sceptics on the other had appear to have a wider choice of things to discuss and possibly as you say "discredit".

Remember one poster on here has directly accused Martin Grime of not being honest. The post may be gone but the intention was there. I have also seen other posters particularly a couple on twitter calling Martin Grime a "liar".

I stand by what I said although perhaps I wouldn't have said "afraid" I would say that supporters are keen to discredit the dogs because they point away from their approved abduction scenario.

With this in mind though why can't supporters see there is a possibility that the abductor accidentally may have killed Madeleine then decided to remove the body so they wouldn't be found guilty for murder.  That is a possibility however remote IMO.

All your incorrect opinion...
If an abductor had killed Maddie in the, apartment the body would have to have lain for some time for cadaver odour to develop... So not possible

[Vertigo Swirl]

As far as I have seen the supporters have a limited choice of things to discredit and very little to point to abduction. The sceptics on the other had appear to have a wider choice of things to discuss and possibly as you say "discredit".

Remember one poster on here has directly accused Martin Grime of not being honest. The post may be gone but the intention was there. I have also seen other posters particularly a couple on twitter calling Martin Grime a "liar".

I stand by what I said although perhaps I wouldn't have said "afraid" I would say that supporters are keen to discredit the dogs because they point away from their approved abduction scenario.

With this in mind though why can't supporters see there is a possibility that the abductor accidentally may have killed Madeleine then decided to remove the body so they wouldn't be found guilty for murder.  That is a possibility however remote IMO.

With regard to your last paragraph, how do you figure out there is a possibility for that scenario to explain the dog alerts?
As for the rest of your post, there are plenty of questions and criticisms that can be levelled by supporters regarding the original investigation and the way it was handled, don't you worry about that.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The timing is wrong for this.

An alleged abductor was in and out in 'no time at all', so not sufficient time for a body to lie anywhere and leave a cadaver scent.

That is why the dogs must be dissed . A cadaver scent  points directly at parental involvement.

How long does a body have to be in situ for it to leave cadaver scent, do you or does anyone actually know the answer to that? Because it really is a very important question if we are to believe the McCanns hid their child's body.

[jassi]

Estimates vary, but seem to be considerably longer than 5 or 10 minutes.

[Mr Gray]

The timing is wrong for this.

An alleged abductor was in and out in 'no time at all', so not sufficient time for a body to lie anywhere and leave a cadaver scent.

That is why the dogs must be dissed . A cadaver scent  points directly at parental involvement.

If the alerts, are to cadaver scent then it points directly at the parents and I would expect them to be arrested  and charged..... That hasn't happened which suggests the alerts are not regarded as being to a cadaver

[Vertigo Swirl]

Estimates vary, but seem to be considerably long than 5 or 10 minutes.

Quite a lot longer - 2 hours seems to be the accepted minimum (don't ask me for a cite, I said "seems") but some have said less.  If it was two hours in this case then the child was dead before the McCanns went to dinner.  Now, does that seem very likely?  On the other hand if we take 90 minutes as the bare minimum then that means the sleeping child got up the second her parents left the apartment and had an instantly fatal accident.  Again, what are the chances?  What sort of accident, whereabouts?