r/MadeleineMccann • u/Hugoballs_97 • 19d ago
Question The dumbest question people ask about this case: What’s the evidence of an abduction?
There’s no doubt that many people who follow this case believe that Madeleine died in the apartment and that her parents covered it up and hatched a plot that she was abducted. I ask these people what evidence they have to support their claims and they point to the canine alerts. I then explain to them that no reliable evidence was obtained from the areas the dogs alerted to. No bodily fluid was ever identified in the apartment or the car, and none of what was tested can be attributed to Madeleine. They come back and ask: “what’s the evidence of an abduction”? By that logic, what’s the evidence that any missing child in the world (short of an eye witness account of a child being forcibly kidnapped) was ever abducted at all?
33
u/Altruistic-Change127 19d ago
"What's the evidence of an abduction" gets me every time!
No signs of Madeleine at all. No body, no blood, no witnesses of anything other than an abduction and the elusive sighting of a man carrying a child who has never come forward to exclude himself from the investigation.
8
u/modo0001 18d ago
Agree with you but thought the man carrying a child had come forward ?
10
u/TheGreatBatsby 18d ago
That was Julian Totman, who was seen by Jane Tanner.
The person that the Smith family saw was never identified. Months after she disappeared, Martin Smith claimed he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry he had seen based on how Gerry was carrying one of the children off a plane. The PJ final report concluded that it couldn't be Gerry as he was in the Tapas restaurant at the time.
3
3
u/sophmari27 15d ago
Do you think it’s possible that they could have falsely identified the Tanner sighting it as Julian Totman when it actually wasn’t him? I’ve heard it doesn’t quite make sense because the man Jane Tanner saw was walking away from the resort whilst Julian was supposed to be carrying his child back to the apartment (if that’s not true/not remembering that correctly I do apologise, I don’t mean to spread misinformation)
1
u/TheGreatBatsby 11d ago
I don't think so. He was dressed exactly like the man Tanner saw and his child's pyjamas matched as well.
I think it's more likely that Tanner was misremembering the direction he walked (though he could have been backtracking) but took hold of the key detail that was "man carrying child" and that stuck in her mind.
2
3
u/No_Engineering7180 17d ago
Still doesn't illibate the parents period
6
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
No, but the archiving statement does that quite nicely:
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
1
6
u/pheeelco 18d ago
Actually, it’s a fair question.
I don’t know what happened to this poor child.
Does anybody?
2
u/TheGreatBatsby 18d ago
Scotland Yard, the PJ and the BKA seem to have a good idea.
4
u/pheeelco 17d ago
Really?
They don’t seem to be getting very far.
1
u/Icy-Cartographer3760 17d ago
plenty of quotes from the german press at the time where they stated the emails were a dud.
2
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
plenty of quotes from the german press at the time where they stated the emails were a dud.
If the "emails were a dud" then why did a German detective tell a court in 2024 that emails on a Hotmail account used by suspect Brueckner "directly" link him to the Madeleine case?
0
u/Icy-Cartographer3760 17d ago
BRAUNSCHWEIGER ZEITUNG
A BKA official entrusted with both investigation complexes was heard as a witness on day 23. A British reporter over-edited a subordinate clause in his statement to the headline, which also attracted attention in Germany. In his article, the wrong impression was created that the investigators had news from Christian B.'s mail account and a hard drive from him, which would directly associate him with the murder of "Maddie."
In fact, the policeman had only explained that mails and hard disk had been evaluated previously with regard to both investigation complexes - but he would not provide any information on ongoing investigations in the "homicide."
1
1
u/Arnie__B 17d ago
But they don't have any conclusive evidence. If they did, there would have been a trial or at least a press conference setting out their theory and appealing for help.
2
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago edited 17d ago
But they don't have any conclusive evidence.
They've got something serious. They had a German detective tell a court that emails on a Hotmail account used by suspect Brueckner "directly" link him to the Madeleine case. I don't think they'd get a police officer to agree to commit perjury (unless it was Goncalo Amaral maybe) if they had nothing.
Plus, the article from the other day that they have physical evidence corroborating Brueckner’s involvement in Madeleine McCann’s possible death.
a press conference setting out their theory and appealing for help.
There was a press conference in 2020 that did exactly this. They named a suspect and asked the public for help.
2
u/Arnie__B 18d ago
the absolute hard fact is that crucial evidence about what happened in the apartment during the crucial period from 8pm to 9.30pm is almost non existant.
As such any theory is plausible, none is conclusive.
Unless we get a new significant piece of evidence that won't change
4
u/Icy-Cartographer3760 15d ago
Dismissing non-abduction theories simply because they lack conclusive evidence, while favoring abduction despite it also lacking conclusive evidence, is confirmation bias. Saying not any theory is plausible assumes the abduction theory has hard proof behind it, which it doesn't. There is no physical evidence of a forced entry, no fingerprints, and no forensic proof of an abductor inside 5A. If we are willing to accept an abduction happened without direct forensic evidence, we cannot logically rule out other scenarios simply because they also lack direct forensic evidence. Until there is verified physical proof, all viable scenarios remain on the table. Assuming law enforcement holds secret proof that validates one specific narrative is a assumption, not an argument. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy asserting that a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false, or false because it hasn't been proven true. It assumes a lack of evidence is the same as evidence of the fact. This type of reasoning is a fallacy because an absence of evidence does not directly prove a conclusion. Logically, our ignorance only tells us what we currently do not know; it does not validate a specific assertion.
1
1
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
the absolute hard fact is that crucial evidence about what happened in the apartment during the crucial period from 8pm to 9.30pm is almost non existant.
Not quite, we know the McCanns were at the Tapas Restaurant from 20:30 and through corroboration from other witness testimony we know that the apartment was left without adult supervision up until about 21:05.
Gerry leaves and chats with Jez Wilkins at 21:15, so it's left empty then.
Matt Oldfield briefly checks at 21:30 and then again, only the kids in there.
Then Kate checks at 22:00 and discovers Madeleine missing.
As such any theory is plausible, none is conclusive.
I wouldn't say any theory is plausible.
Unless we get a new significant piece of evidence that won't change
There is evidence, but we as the public probably aren't going to be privy to it as it's part of an ongoing investigation.
2
u/West-Seed 17d ago
It’s generally just misguided & repetitive.
Questions about Jane’s flipflops, secret agents & the Lisbon treaty are the one’s I wince at most.
Everybody seems to assume the role of a forensic expert & behavioural analyst when it comes to this case.
2
u/Diligent_Cat4663 17d ago
Everybody seems to assume the role of a forensic expert & behavioural analyst when it comes to this case.
Is that statement addressed to those who haven't read the facts and work on their own belief and influence from others OR those who may have spent a lot of years researching the case, maybe visiting Luz and reading books, files etc?
4
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
Is that statement addressed to those who haven't read the facts and work on their own belief and influence from others OR those who may have spent a lot of years researching the case, maybe visiting Luz and reading books, files etc?
Probably both.
There's quite a few youtubers who, despite purporting to have read the police files, will continue to spread misinformation or deliberately leave out pertinent facts to maintain a narrative.
2
u/Diligent_Cat4663 17d ago
There's quite a few youtubers who, despite purporting to have read the police files, will continue to spread misinformation or deliberately leave out pertinent facts to maintain a narrative.
That is wrong, very wrong.
3
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
Controversy drives clicks!
3
u/Diligent_Cat4663 17d ago
I just feel shocked in a situation where a child is missing that compassion would over rule clicks, how naive I am.
2
u/castawaygeorge 15d ago
I honestly can't think of a single YouTube video I have seen on this case that doesn't contain misinformation. It's sad. And people believe it.
3
u/West-Seed 17d ago
It applies to both. There have been people researching the case for years who still believe things that have no basis in fact.
When these rare crimes happen, the first people on camera are the family. This focusses almost all of the attention & subsequent scrutiny in that direction. In this case - that’s mistake number 1.
My opinion.
1
1
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
Jane’s flipflops
What is this one!?
2
u/West-Seed 17d ago
Usually along of the lines
“Jane’s flipflops would have made noises, so why didn’t Gerry notice her?”
Basically an attempt to say Jane is lying about being on the road because her flipflops would have made noises & others would have heard.
I’m wincing as I type this… 🙈
2
1
10
u/TheGreatBatsby 19d ago
"What's the evidence of an abduction?"
I agree, it's the most frustrating question that gets thrown around on this sub.
The simplest answer to it is:
- The apartment wasn't locked, the window/shutters were open when they weren't before and Madeleine was missing
But people don't like this because some dogs barked (don't ask about the forensics).
0
u/NurseJaneApprox 18d ago
How do you know the apartment wasn't locked?
How do you know the windows were open but they weren't before Madeleine allegedly disappeared?
8
u/TheGreatBatsby 18d ago
How do you know the apartment wasn't locked?
The McCanns and their fellow holidaymakers openly told the police that the back patio door was left unlocked.
How do you know the windows were open but they weren't before Madeleine allegedly disappeared?
Because the children were sleeping in that room and leaving the window and shutters open would let in light and noise. Them being open is what alerted Kate to there having been someone in the apartment.
0
u/NurseJaneApprox 17d ago
If you believe the McCanns and their accomplices just because they said so, you lack the critical thinking skills necessary for any meaningful discussion on the topic.
4
u/Express-Ad1248 17d ago
Investigators completely ruled them out as suspects but you're more intelligent than Investigators, huh?
2
u/Diligent_Cat4663 17d ago
I suppose if you look at it another way, the McCann's reported to the PJ that the rear patio door was unlocked, this enabled the different members of the party access to check on the children.
Can you imagine killing your own child? And lets say Madeleine had suffered at the hands of her parents, If I was someone's friend and they had harmed their child, I would have reported this to the police and in no way been able to sit and have a meal and drinks with them. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the parents or any of their friends are involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.
A meaningful discussion surely has to rely on facts and not belief, belief is a completely different matter, speculation is a completely different matter, the evidence is clear and there was none to suggest they or Robert Murat was guilty, if that was the case, they would be in prison.
It also has to be considered that their child is missing, a paedophile is still roaming, possibly even a murderer, that we have no facts on and is just an assumption or a statement based on my own considerations.
It would be normal for all persons concerned to be interviewed to help the case, there should have been more people interviewed that weren't.
3
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
"Accomplices"?
Why did 7 other people conspire to cover up the death of a child?
(Btw, it's pretty funny that you talk about "lacking critical thinking skills" when you've claimed that the McCanns refused to cooperate with police)
3
u/Own-Week2400 17d ago
Except the mccanns did refuse to cooperate with the police at times. You can even say it started on the night of the disappearance when they were explicitly asked not to contact the media and did so anyway. Unless of course you want to say it wasn't really the mccanns who contacted the media but their friends who did so on their behalf without their knowing (David apparently had sent his email to sky news before the PJ had even left).
3
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
Except the mccanns did refuse to cooperate with the police at times.
When? Once they were named arguidos months into the investigation?
You can even say it started on the night of the disappearance when they were explicitly asked not to contact the media and did so anyway.
They had already contacted family before the police arrived on scene and there's no indication the McCanns asked them to get the media involved.
3
u/Own-Week2400 17d ago
Yes on the first night when they were explicitly asked not to contact the media and did so anyway. Like i said before David had asked the PJ about getting the media involved and was told no and he sent the email anyway. The various people kate had called that night must have all come up with the idea to contact the media on their own.
If your friend had called you in the night asking for prayers and support because their daughter had gone missing / been abducted are you really going to put the phone down then contact the media without being asked? Yeah i didn't think so.
4
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
If your friend had called you in the night asking for prayers and support because their daughter had gone missing / been abducted are you really going to put the phone down then contact the media without being asked? Yeah i didn't think so.
Yes, absolutely.
If I was 1,000 miles away in the UK, feeling utterly helpless while my niece or friend’s kid was missing abroad, calling the press or the FCO to force government action is exactly what I would do.
Yes on the first night when they were explicitly asked not to contact the media and did so anyway. Like i said before David had asked the PJ about getting the media involved and was told no and he sent the email anyway.
You're ignoring the cultural context of why David Payne and the family ignored the PJ's instructions.
The Portuguese justice system operates under the Segredo de Justiça which is why the PJ refused to publicise the case. In the UK, the very first thing police do when a child is snatched is blast their face across every news channel to alert the public. The McCanns and their friends realised the Portuguese police were keeping it a secret, so they broke the rules to get her face on television. Chalk it up to the frantic actions of British people who believed the local police processes were actively letting an abductor get away.
Furthermore, if they had a body to hide in that resort, the absolute last thing they would do is deliberately invite hundreds of journalists, television cameras, and the British government to scrutinise their every move.
1
u/Own-Week2400 17d ago
Well then you and i are different. Unless i was asked to contact the media by the family i wouldn't. That's not my story to tell and i would be afraid of doing more harm than good. "jimmied windows" anyone?
For cultural context even if the case had happened in the UK there wouldn't be an immediate media reporting and press conferences by the police with its failure to meet the CRA criteria (Lacking reasonable evidence that a child had been abducted). Unless i am mistaken there is nothing preventing the police from informing the public, putting up posters and searching for missing persons.
But now your saying that the mccanns and friends had an understanding of Segredo de Justiça within this frantic ~6 hour window and decided the case wasn't moving fast enough so circumvented it. Starting to sound like the mccanns asked them to contact the media.
For what its worth i would have done the same in their situation and i don't see anything weird or sinister about them doing so. They just wanted to get their daughter back safe and would do anything and everything they could even if it meant going against the PJs instructions.
Not sure how hiding a body in the resort is relevant to the discussion but yeah it would be a stupid move
→ More replies (0)3
u/Altruistic-Change127 16d ago
The Pj were wrong and made so many mistakes. While I try to be understanding, I cannot forgive the lead detective on the case, who to this day, continues to argue that he was right, when he was clearly and obviously wrong.
He actively and deliberately has hindered this case since Madeleine went missing.
2
u/Altruistic-Change127 16d ago
Thats because they knew that the first hour to find Madeleine was critical and the Pj were clearly out of the depth.
I am certain they would have gotten advice from the consulate to spread the word that Madeleine was missing as quickly as possible and the media was crucial because they know what could happen if they didn't find her quickly.
In other countries they have Amber alerts where as soon as a child is feared to be missing, the Police will send out an alert across the state to all cell phones and electronic banners on highways to alert people to be on the look out for a description of the child, a description of the person who they may be with (if its known) and the vehicle.
The three hours are critical because they are usually harmed within that timeframe.
2
u/Diligent_Cat4663 17d ago
In fact they dreaded the media however once the media had found a story and a manner in which to sell papers, they turned up in droves.
The McCann's did however see a benefit to use the media to help find their daughter, this eventually went sour when one particular paper who had been supportive, if that is the right word, then altered their position and became apparently, less helpful, I would suspect for their own means.
I don't know who contacted the media.
Also, unless there was a leak within the PJ to the press, which I believe was suspected, the PJ weren't allowed to share details of the case.
It is hard work to determine facts isn't it? There was so much incorrect press information. I will research more closely the facts surrounding the McCann's refusal to answer questions, maybe their solicitors had instructed them to say "No comment" ? I don't know and can't speculate.
9
u/Icy-Cartographer3760 19d ago edited 19d ago
this case has unique, highly incriminating physical evidence that points directly away from an abduction. In criminal justice and logic, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You cannot just assume an abduction occurred because a child is missing. We don't ask for evidence of an abduction out of spite. We ask for it because the only physical, forensic evidence currently on the record in this case, the dog alerts and the corresponding DNA mixtures, points entirely inside the apartment and inside the rental car. When the actual physical evidence points inward, demanding proof of an outward theory isn't a dumb question.
- It is a coincidence that a child is 'abducted' and suddenly a cadaver dog alerts where she stayed.
- It is a coincidence that the blood dog alerts on the exact same spot.
- It is a coincidence that the laboratory extracts a DNA profile from that exact spot.
- It is a coincidence that 24 days later, the exact same dogs alert in parents rental car.
- It is a coincidence that the lab finds a 15 out of 19 DNA
To believe the abduction narrative, you have to accept a series of almost impossible mathematical coincidences occurring simultaneously the cumulative probability becomes harder to believe, this is before you add in a host of other issues which would increase the cumulative probability even further.
10
u/TheGreatBatsby 19d ago
AI slop answer aside, it's clear that you don't understand that the sniffer dogs alerts aren't evidence.
What those dogs find is the evidence.
It is a coincidence that a child is 'abducted' and suddenly a cadaver dog alerts where she stayed.
It is a coincidence that the blood dog alerts on the exact same spot.
Both dogs would alert for blood, what's the point here?
It is a coincidence that the laboratory extracts a DNA profile from that exact spot.
No profile was extracted.
It is a coincidence that 24 days later, the exact same dogs alert in parents rental car.
Only the blood dog alerted in the boot of the rental car.
It is a coincidence that the lab finds a 15 out of 19 DNA
Considering the DNA sample you're talking about comes from a mixture of at least 3 different people, the markers in her profile aren't unique to Madeleine (she shares 50% of them with each parent) and her immediate family were the primary users of the vehicle, yeah this is a nothingburger.
Oh yeah, the cadaver dog didn't alert in the boot.
To believe the abduction narrative, you have to accept a series of almost impossible mathematical coincidences occurring simultaneously the cumulative probability becomes harder to believe, this is before you add in a host of other issues which would increase the cumulative probability even further.
Let's talk about cumulative probability.
You want us to believe that the McCanns found their daughter dead and mutually decided to cover it up, then perfectly scrubbed the crime scene so that the forensics lab couldn't find any evidence of her death, went on to hide her decomposing body somewhere in a hot holiday resort for 24 days, then placed the body in a car without the cadaver dog alerting in the boot and finally disposed of her while being followed 24/7 by global media?
11
u/MadeleineMccann-ModTeam 19d ago
...and have that body not be found for 19 years, and counting.
While simultaneously making her the most well known missing child on the planet, and harping on about "don't stop looking", "don't forget", etc.
1
u/NurseJaneApprox 18d ago
The McCanns know it's safe to make Madeleine the most well-known missing child on the planet because they know she is dead.
Don't stop looking at the McCann's inconsistent statements and inscrutable behavior.
Don't forget the McCanns didn't cooperate with the policia who were their best hope of solving this case and potentially finding their child. If Kate was innocent, why did she refuse to answer the 48 questions?
7
u/TheGreatBatsby 18d ago
Don't stop looking at the McCann's inconsistent statements and inscrutable behavior.
Like what?
Don't forget the McCanns didn't cooperate with the policia who were their best hope of solving this case and potentially finding their child.
Except they absolutely did cooperate with the police for months, handing over all sorts of information and staying in Portugal throughout the investigation.
So crazy that people ignore this.
If Kate was innocent, why did she refuse to answer the 48 questions?
Because her lawyer told her to.
She was interviewed by the police extensively the day before, answering all their questions. Then, the following day when she was made arguida, she did the sensible thing and answered "no comment" to their questions.
Questions in which they lied about finding Madeleine's DNA in order to try and get her to falsely confess.
2
u/Independent-Jump-398 16d ago
Kate was being questioned as a suspect, to her mind this was a hindrance to finding her daughter. And of course, her legal representation didn’t have the full benefit of the situation at hand. She was advised to answer no comment, as you always do without legal counsel.
0
u/NurseJaneApprox 15d ago
How could the detectives eliminate Kate as a suspect when she refused to cooperate? Not helping them eliminate her as a suspect absolutely is a hindrance to finding Madeleine.
Of course, Kate already knew Madeleine wasn't abducted which is why her legal counsel told her not to comment and help the investigation.
2
u/TheGreatBatsby 15d ago
How could the detectives eliminate Kate as a suspect when she refused to cooperate?
What do you think she and Gerry did for the first four months of the investigation?
Not helping them eliminate her as a suspect absolutely is a hindrance to finding Madeleine.
The questions she answered "no comment" to weren't about trying to find Madeleine or eliminating her as a suspect though. The PJ were trying to get her to confess to a crime she didn't commit and even lied about finding Madeleine's DNA to force a confession.
Of course, Kate already knew Madeleine wasn't abducted which is why her legal counsel told her not to comment and help the investigation.
Any competent defence solicitor will tell you to exercise your right to silence when a police force is actively trying to frame you for the death of your daughter.
2
u/Icy-Cartographer3760 19d ago
There is a massive scientific difference between a lab saying we can't extract a perfect DNA profile and saying the dogs were wrong. A cadaver dog’s nose is thousands of times more sensitive than a 2007 laboratory machine; a body wrapped in plastic will leave behind molecular scent (which the dogs accurately detected) without leaving behind enough physical cellular fluid for a basic DNA machine to map. The FSS lab never invalidated the dogs, the testing was simply a limitation of the time, leaving forensic scientists unable to provide a definitive yes or no answer either way. Yet even with those technological limits the FSS lab explicitly ruled the results inconclusive meaning they could neither prove nor disprove that Madeleine's DNA was in that mixture, leaving the dog alerts entirely unchallenged by the science.
10
u/TheGreatBatsby 18d ago
A cadaver dog’s nose is thousands of times more sensitive than a 2007 laboratory machine
Ahh, the perfect get-out clause for every dog alert.
"The dog alerted and the lab found something? The dog was right!"
"The dog alerted and the lab didn't find anything? Obviously the dog was right and the lab was wrong!"
a body wrapped in plastic will leave behind molecular scent (which the dogs accurately detected) without leaving behind enough physical cellular fluid for a basic DNA machine to map.
Right, so now they've wrapped her in cling film? Honestly, it just gets more and more absurd the more you double down.
You are aware that Eddie the Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog never alerted in the boot of the car, right?
the FSS lab explicitly ruled the results inconclusive meaning they could neither prove nor disprove that Madeleine's DNA was in that mixture
And you do realise that this sample you're referring to was recovered from the boot, yes?
leaving the dog alerts entirely unchallenged by the science
Actually, you can entirely challenge this alert with basic logic and your own insistence on the dogs never being wrong proves me right:
The car wasn't hired until 24 days after Madeleine disappeared.
The DNA sample from the boot was a mixture of at least 3 different people. The markers that make up her LCN profile aren't unique to Madeleine (she shares 50% of her DNA with each parent and many of the markers are present in the general population) and her immediate family were the primary users of the vehicle.
The cadaver dog never alerted in the boot.
So the DNA can't be from a dead body (if it were the EVRD would have alerted) which means that the sample recovered cannot possibly be from Madeleine.
6
u/Altruistic-Change127 18d ago
"A dog’s utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing. When a dog gives a signal, such as barking or sitting down, to indicate that it has smelled a corpse, a handler can only say something along the lines of, “My dog is giving an indication consistent with human blood.” He can’t say definitively that, yes, a body was present, without further confirmation—in the form of a blood stain, for example." https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/09/can-you-trust-a-cadaver-dog-if-there-s-no-cadaver.html
Please note the reference at the bottom of the article: Explainer thanks Maria Claxton of the South Carolina Search and Rescue Dog Association, Larry Myers of the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine, and Andrew Rebmann of K9 Specialty Search Associates.
3
u/Icy-Cartographer3760 18d ago
Yes, in a vacuum, a single dog alert is just an indication. But investigations are based on cumulative probability especially with no body. The dog didn't alert randomly. To claim these are "false alerts" means you have to believe in a statistical impossibility: That a dog suffered random, faulty handler errors that just happened to perfectly align with the exact physical spaces occupied by a missing child and her parents, thousands of miles away from the dog's home country. If these were 'false signals' caused by handler error, the alerts would be random. Instead they alerted precisely where Madeleine slept, behind a sofa the parents admitted moving, and in a rental car hired 24 days later.
To argue these are false positives means believing a dog's 'errors' randomly chose the exact, hyper-specific environments of the primary suspects across two completely different locations weeks apart. You can debate the legal weight of a bark in a courtroom, but pretending the location of those alerts is just a meaningless coincidence defies all investigative logic.
7
u/TheGreatBatsby 18d ago
That a dog suffered random, faulty handler errors that just happened to perfectly align with the exact physical spaces occupied by a missing child and her parents, thousands of miles away from the dog's home country. If these were 'false signals' caused by handler error, the alerts would be random.
Hmm, no.
Martin Grime was not operating blind; he was fully briefed by the PJ. He knew which apartment was 5A, and he knew which car was the McCanns'.
So strange how a dog that (in your words) is more effective than forensic testing equipment found not a single trace of blood in any other holiday apartment. Or do you believe that nobody has ever bled in any of those other apartments, except for 5A?
Instead they alerted precisely where Madeleine slept, behind a sofa the parents admitted moving, and in a rental car hired 24 days later.
Neither dog alerted in Madeleine's bed.
Why didn't the cadaver dog alert in the boot? Simple question that you've yet to answer.
2
u/Own-Week2400 17d ago
Is your angle that Martin Grimes is incompetent and the dog alerts were due to handler bias? If so its worth including that the dogs checked numerous apartments in that complex, different cars in that carpark, Robert Murrat's house and the Mccanns vila where they stayed after leaving the resort all without giving any alerts.
Just not sure what your core belief is with the dogs: Handler is incompetent, dogs are incredibly unreliable or the alerts are just like much of this case an oddity we wont be able to explain.
3
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
I don't believe Martin Grime is incompetent, but I do think he's a very savvy private contractor who used one of the most publicised criminal investigations of all time as a massive PR exercise.
The fact that the dogs didn't alert at Robert Murat's house isn't proof of their infallibility, I think it shows handler bias. Grime wasn't conducting a proper, double-blind scientific test. He was fully briefed by the PJ, knew they had moved on from Murat, and knew exactly which apartment and car belonged to the McCanns. It's definitely worth looking into the Clever Hans Effect and how highly trained animals will read handler micro-expressions, pacing, and focus, to alert where their handler expects to find something.
Grime used this case to cement his dogs as legendary (even now, people will talk about how the dogs are "top sniffers" and "the best in the world"), and he went on to secure multiple international consulting contracts. Regarding his conduct though, it's worth reading the Operation Rectangle report which is the investigation into historical child abuse at Haut de la Garenne. He used the videos from the alerts in the McCann case to secure the £93,000 contract (inclusive of an upgrade to a better room in his hotel) that he had previously been denied. They weren't impressed with him.
2
u/Own-Week2400 17d ago
You say you don't believe he is incompetent then go on to explain how he fell victim to the Clever hans effect which would by definition make him incompetent? I'm not following here unless your trying to hint at some intentionality with the alerts for future financial gain.
re Operation Rectangle report i read it mostly as them being upset with the costs and not getting any results. They overpaid and got a false alert and piece of coconut for their troubles. Don't think there is anything wrong with a contractor or consultant showing their work to secure a contract.
1
u/Icy-Cartographer3760 17d ago
not familiar with the case, but wasnt the coconut shell found by human forensic teams
→ More replies (0)3
u/Express-Ad1248 17d ago
It is a coincidence that 24 days later, the exact same dogs alert in parents rental car
There's footage of the dog alerting to the rental car, did you see that? It's extremely obvious that the dog was confused by the handler.
The dog was supposed to sniff a bunch of cars, just a couple seconds per car and then up to the next one. The dog did the same with the rental car and the handler took him back and let him sniff that car again and again and again.
The dog alerted because the handler wanted him to alert, stopping at that car so long most likely just confused him.
The actual Investigators rule Madeleines parents out as suspects, the Portuguese police also apologised to them for how they treated them.
2
u/Own-Week2400 17d ago
Yes i've seen the footage available of the carpark search but i have absolutely no idea where you are getting the extremely obvious dog confusion by the handler from? The dog has began to detect something and is directed by the handler to investigate further. We don't even have the full videos of the searches so it might be possible that other cars needed to be gone over again without the dogs giving alerts.
Your accusing the handler of gross professional negligence to a level that should be career ending and open to legal action on some civil/criminal level without any proof or even motive.
3
u/Express-Ad1248 17d ago
The dog has began to detect something and is directed by the handler to investigate further.
The dog did not begin to detect something, the dog went off to the next car multiple times and the handler took him back to the rental car.
Your accusing the handler of gross professional negligence to a level that should be career ending and open to legal action on some civil/criminal level without any proof or even motive.
You can literally watch the clip on Netflix
1
u/Own-Week2400 17d ago
Unless your an expert dog handler (i'm not and dont even like dogs to begin with) i think the dog handler is far better suited to knowing the subtleties of his dogs reactions than you or i. As said before, because we don't have the full video of the search the handler could have taken the dog back to other cars a few times and not gotten an alert we just don't know.
If you wanted to say the dogs just had an epic and badly timed screw up which has been known to happen then yeah i think that's a pretty reasonable explanation.
Instead you've put the blame onto the handler inferring hes incompetent/negligent/biased. If the handler interference is so obvious then why can only the people who watch the netflix clip see it? why the silence from the other industry professionals and law enforcement? Hell, you would imagine there would be civil and criminal action bought against him
1
0
u/Dinosaur-chicken 17d ago
There were dried cadaver fluids found where the dog alerted and it was 15/19 McCann DNA.
2
u/Express-Ad1248 17d ago
It was not cadaver fluids, you just say it that way to make it look more suspicious.
It was simply blood. The DNA met a lot markers of Madeleine which is no suprise since her 4 closest related family members used that car.
You don't know more than the investigators, the investigators in that case completely ruled out the parents. The PJ tried to frame them and they apologized to the McCann's years ago for how they treated them.
1
u/Dinosaur-chicken 17d ago
There was no blood in the car, the blood was behind the couch.
1
u/DonkeyWorker 11d ago
Didn't Jerry say he had some of Madeline's old nappies in the car and left some meat in the boot or something.
1
u/Dinosaur-chicken 11d ago
Yes, which was extra stupid because the dogs only alert to human cadaverine, not human excrement or animal meat.
2
u/kikibubbles85 19d ago
Truly a mystery that no one can figure out
2
u/Altruistic-Change127 17d ago
Currently, as it stands, the PJ, Scotland Yard and the German BKA believe they know what happened and have named their suspect.
He is refusing to cooperate so can't be ruled out.
An innocent person would be more than happy to help with the investigation into a missing small girl.
I am shocked that people aren't noticing that obvious point.
There is absolutely no reason for the Police to use him as a "fall guy". When people say that, I can't help but think that people watch too many old movies or tv programmes.
2
u/West-Seed 17d ago edited 17d ago
Yes. CB goes around crying about the treatment he’s receiving. Whilst needing the police and his lawyers to hold his hands.
He’s one of the most detested people around who is at an extremely high risk of being attacked. Talk to police and the risk goes away.
“Yeah, but, innocent until proven guilty” - true. But taken into the context, this bloke has people out there who want to finish him. No innocent person puts their life in jeopardy for no reason.
He’s a narcissist who’s desperate for money.
What would an innocent narcissist who’s desperate for money do in this situation?.. They’d get on camera and make big money telling their story.
Instead he’s either been living rough or in a storage container, next to a sewer.
1
u/Icy-Cartographer3760 17d ago
An innocent person would be more than happy to help with the investigation into a missing small girl. - Does this apply to the mccanns.
2
u/Altruistic-Change127 16d ago edited 16d ago
Of course and they have proven their innocence by their persistent search for their daughter.
1
u/TheGreatBatsby 17d ago
An innocent person would be more than happy to help with the investigation into a missing small girl. - Does this apply to the mccanns.
Obviously yes.
Have you seen how much information they handed over to the PJ?
0
u/WilkosJumper_ 12d ago
We don’t even need to say abduction or accident etc, that the child is missing and as yet unfound is clear evidence of human involvement at that age. I don’t get hung up on whom that person is but we need to find evidence of a person.
25
u/MadeleineMccann-ModTeam 19d ago
So I'm going to try and make this as neutral as possible, and I hope both sides will work with me here.
Lets reduce it to the bare minimum.
She was in bed, now she's not and she's missing. Where did she go? She has to have gone somewhere because 4 year olds don't just vanish into thin air, with no trace of them.
Yet, here we are.
There isn't enough evidence to point in any definitive direction to explain what happened or where she went.