A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation: 10thSeptember 2007

In the light of the most recent revelations about a German suspect, said to be 'the prime suspect' in the disappearance of little Madeleine McCann, this interim report has been reproduced a number of times here on CMOMM but in my view it is so important, it should never be forgotten nor buried by the team McCann wider agenda ..

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.

10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)

MADELEINE BETH MCCANN was born on the 12th of May of 2003.
She is missing (disappeared) since 03 of May of 2007, a fact that occurred in Praia da Luz, Lagos.
She is the daughter of Gerald and Kate McCann and her birth was desired and planned. However it must be referred the difficulty of the mother to get pregnant, from which resulted the necessary treatments and their 'costs'. [I presume he refers more to the emotional and social costs than monetary ones].

She was born after fertilization 'in vitro', but in face of the DNA profile of the minor, she is the daughter of the couple McCann.

It is a scientific fact that the medical treatments to overcome some of the causes for a non-pregnancy raises the probability of, in a normal pregnancy, twins may be born.

In this case we can see that a pregnancy, although desired and planned, turned into a family situation of five instead of three persons. And then, to take care of one child is not the same as taking care of three, all very young.

At around 24h on the 3rd of May of 2007, through a phone connection from the Lagos GNR to this 'piquet', was communicated the disappearance of a minor, a British subject.
We went to the local to proceed to the necessary judiciary inspection.

Before the fact of the disappearance of the minor, the investigation 'designed' the several possible sketches.

From the beginning the parents of the minor attributed the fact (disappearance) to the action of a third party, defending the KIDNAPPING.

Even though it was a possible scenario, the actions of the family were in the sense of conducting into that direction, through the publicity of the fact in a way that was never seen before.
In fact, in the following day, the British televisions 'opened' the news already publicizing the disappearance/kidnapping of the minor.

The defence of this scenario was, for the Media, the truth of the facts under investigation.
Time went by without the confirmation of this scenario by the presence of any of its necessary assumptions. It was never requested any sort of ransom in exchange for information or the child herself.

However and in front of the depositions of one of the friends, Jane Tanner, one could presume to be before such frame.

Meanwhile the diligences continued in order to recover all types of information and always in the perspective of working over all the possible scenarios.

The information recovered, in the beginning, with the family and friends, was uncertain and 'worked up', by the group, in order to give strength to the version presented and defended.
According to the parents and the GROUP, they went for dinner and all of them left the children, sleeping, in their respective apartments.

The elements of the group had a meeting where they agreed on certain rules that sustained the version that they accompanied continuously the children, while they dined.

It is annexed a manuscript of an element of the group that gives consistence to this thesis.
These principles that, in this way, were shared by all the group makes that all the GROUP is always exculpated in the eyes of the British public opinion, making it impossible that any abnormal occurrence that occurred could take more than 30 minutes, once they all agreed to be that the timing they used to look for the children.

The version that someone in the group that every 15 minutes or every 30 minutes went to the apartments to check if everything was alright falls down!

From the declarations of the group results a total incoherence, in the face of which it's obvious, that everyone lies.

We may verify that one of the elements of the group wanting to provide consistency to the group's version, gives it a personal touch: the checking on the children were done in two ways, one just by listening if anyone was crying and in case there was silence than everything was well and the other one, by really checking.

On his turn to verify the children, one of the elements of the group, Mathew, acted on this manner, and he even told Kate that everything was okay but without specifying. Kate remembers this detail.

The truth, however, is that this statements made the investigation to wander, losing time and resources.

It is not admissible (understandable) that this information was given in the beginning and maintained all along the time, in spite of the fact that anyone could verify the losses that it caused to the investigation.

After all this time the version is maintained paired with the public and 'hammered 'statement that what they want the most is 'to help the investigation'.

The investigation had to assume the incorrect information and move forward.

From tsuch the results are that:

' If anyone went to check the children and if everything was alright the disappearance could only have occurred between 21:30h and 22:00h;

' If the information didn't take into account that witness (' ) then the disappearance occurred between 21:00h and 22:00 h, enlarging the period ( assuming the father is telling the truth);

There is however another question about the timing, which is:

' The last time the child was seen outside of the GROUP, by someone that can prove that moment, it was around 17h:35m, when the parents went to fetch her from the Creche, which can enlarge the gap of time, between the disappearance and the alarm, to four hours.

Continuing with the analysis of the information presented, we have an element of the GROUP that became a witness, pretensely important, Jane Tanner, because of what she communicated: she SAW someone at dinner time crossing the road from the place of the disappearance, in the direction of Robert Murat's house.

This information swerved (directed) and mobilized the work of the investigators for a long time. This can be the example how information that is not correct can, not only delay, but could have also lead to the loss of the little girl.

Through the insistence on the information, several scenarios of the disconformities of that with the reality were traced, but it didn't prevent the realization of an intense and long work around that arguido.

We can also verify the discrepancies about the subject on the declarations of Gerald and Jane. How to pass at scarce 2 / 3 meters from each other without seeing one another, they can be positioned in such a reduced space, and between them they cannot see the same person passing by; or rather, one sees but not the other.

Even the local where, assumingly, they crossed each other is not well defined by any of them.

The moment chosen by the witness Jane to make her statement about what she had 'seen' and the explanation for that moment is unreal, that is, it is not easy to accept that any witness (from the group) when seeing someone with a child in the arms getting away from the McCann's place, hadn't immediately acted or spoken, being certain that the description of the person was being consecutively altered, 'perfected'. So, there isn't much credibility on this deposition.

Until now we have been analyzing small distortions in the information initially transmitted, being noticeable 'small' alterations (distortions) of the truth, and relating it with the investigation and with the directions it forced it into.

The investigation didn't follow the command or the will of anyone; the family and Group's information that on this type of crime is fundamental, was always distorted.

The fact that the individuals were foreigners prevented, until now, that direct information about the persons of the GROUP were obtained.

The parents of the minor live in a society, the British, known through the press, as very demanding. The professions of both parents, medicine, completed by the fact that the father is a surgeon, increases this degree of pressure and consequent tiredness.

In a society identified internationally and in the Media as very demanding and with many and tight rules to establish those standards of exigency, it makes it obligatory that people rest; make a professional retreat; take their holidays.

Gerald McCann's profession is a cardiovascular surgeon.

On many moments of his professional career he had to make decisions in thousandths of a second, which gives him certain 'coldness' and, certainly provokes an increased tiredness.

The enjoyment of a period of holidays supposes a rest through non-ordinary practices and freedom and exemption from schedules.

The social life in such a holiday, in the present case, was facilitated by the fact that they travelled as a group.

But that social life may, in a certain way, be touched by the presence and constant needs of accompanying the minors.

This evidence and need was clear in the deliverance of the children by the respective children's centres and creches (according to their ages). The holiday time was not shared between parents and children.

The day, 03 of May of 2007, had gone by, until dinner time, in a natural way according to the adopted style.

After getting the children from the Children's centres and the creche they went to the apartment, little after 17:35h.

But' Kate went running for half an hour at the beach and then went to the apartment and' Gerald went to play tennis.

While the tennis play was taking place another element of the group that had been in touch with Kate, in the apartment, in a period of time that could have taken between 30 seconds, according to Kate, and 30 minutes, according to Gerald.

In thirty seconds we may ask if everything is well and if anything is needed, little more.
In thirty minutes we can go ahead and make something that is needed from us'

They put the minors to bed and to sleep, around 19:30h. They stood at home until 20:30h, going to the Tapas restaurant afterwards. Of the group they were the first to arrive.

Although the entire group was at the table and starting the meal, they began the 'visits' to the children in a way that is neither coherent nor acceptable; that could not be confirmed and only the group defends it, in a sort of 'unique version'.

Although they say in the 'Autos' that their strategic position in the Tapas restaurant allowed them, the McCann, to see the apartment where they'd left their children, minor, sleeping, the exam of the local reveals it is false.

It must be noted, also, that by the stated in the 'Autos' everything points to their position at the table with their back to the apartment.

On that NIGHT, around 22:05h, according to her version, it was Kate that went to the apartment to check the children, coinciding with the end of the dinner, at which she had arrived at 20:30h.
So, she returned to the apartment about one and a half hours later, the time lapse while she didn't see her children.

It took her about 10 minutes. She returned to the restaurant and communicated to the remaining elements the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine.

It must be noted that Kate knew that, going back to the restaurant as she did, she would leave the twins, Amelie and Sean, in the same dangerous situation.

It is not understandable why she didn't use the cell phone to call Gerald or the group or, even simpler, that she didn't go to the balcony from where she could be perfectly heard by the elements of the group.
+++
The authorities, the GNR, were alerted around 22:40h and, he population alerted, started the searches for the minor.

The divulgation of the facts weren't kept within the authorities and the normal channels. On the following day the British and Portuguese TVs were advertising the fact.

The GROUP was together. The search was circumscribed to the interior of the apartment.
Before any search by the authorities at the surroundings the notice about an eventual kidnapping was already running along.

By reasons, they said, of counselling and support the parents asked for the presence of a priest, at around 02:00h/03:00h on the 04 of May.

On the informal depositions they made, during the judiciary inspection made at the local, the information immediately induced the thesis of KIDNAPPING.

Simple things became disinformation: the question of the opened or closed window; the shutter up or down; the balcony door opened' the front door, locked or open.

Despite everything, until a certain time in the investigation the family sustained the thesis of kidnapping. However, in a date that cannot be precise it was suggested to the family that they should consult a person that could, eventually, indicate the probable place where the cadaver of little Madeleine could be found.

This fact became inexplicable to the elements of the investigation once it were the members of the family that raised the hypothesis of death of little Maddie.

Nevertheless, before the Media they kept (and keep) declaring their hope on finding their daughter alive: the first time that the hypothesis of the death of the little girl was raised it was, effectively, suggested by the McCann.

Although maintaining all the lines of the investigation opened it was, nevertheless, decided to advance in the direction of a new inspection to the local where the girl disappeared.
The inspection technique is frequently used in the United Kingdom and consists on the use of dogs especially trained.

As it's natural it is the dog's olfact the 'sense' used. In the case of this 'sense' the difference between the human and the dog is 5 million cells to 200 millions.

It must be highlighted that the resource to this kind of inspection is frequent in the UK and the success rate is 100%.

One of the dogs is trained to detect the odour of cadaver and the other to identify vestiges of human blood.

We refer now that the location of the cadaver odours signifies that physically the body (cadaver) is not on the place, marked by the dog, but certainly it has been there, as long as the dog signals it.

As it can be verified from the 'Autos', in the inquiry, the dogs inspected the locales and objects with the results described below.

All the inspections were recorded in sound and image and were directed by our British colleagues that accompanied the dogs.

Among the great number of objects and locales inspected, the dogs marked the following places:
1. Apartment 5 A, Ocean Club resort, the place from where the child disappeared
1.1. Cadaver odour
* Master bedroom, in a corner, by the wardrobe
* Living room, behind the sofa, by the side window
1.2. Blood dog:
* Living room behind the sofa, close to the lateral window (on the same spot signalled by the cadaver dog);
2. Front garden to the apartment 5A
2.1. Cadaver dog
* Flower bed (the dog handler commented on the 'lightness' of the odor)
3. Apartments where the rest of the group were staying
* NOTHING was detected by the dogs
4. Actual residence of the McCann
* NOTHING was detected on the house by any of the dogs
5. At Aldeia da Luz
* NOTHING was detected by any of the dogs
6. Clothes and belongings of McCann family
6.1. Cadaver dog:
* 2 pieces of clothing of Kate McCann
* One piece of Madeleine McCann
* Madeleine's soft toy
* The odour was detected when the toy was still in the interior of the actual residence of the McCann
* It was confirmed in out of the house conditions
7. Vehicle used by the McCann family
7.1. Cadaver dog:
* Marked the key of the car
* Marked the interior of the booth
7.2. Blood dog
* Marked the car key
* Marked the interior of the booth
8. Car used by a family friend that was staying in the same resort, in some of the same days
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs
9. All the cars used by the arguido Robert Murat and the people that are close to him
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs.

(In a total of 10 cars the cadaver dog and the blood dog only marked the car of the McCann family, rented at May 27th)

The places and the pieces marked and signaled by the blood dog are being subjected to forensic exams, part of which are already concluded.

Not less relevant is the refinement of the results that point towards Madeleine's DNA as being present at the apartment 5A behind the sofa, a place marked by the cadaver and the blood dog. In every place marked by the blood dog it was confirmed there was DNA.

The Media enhancement given to the case and their search for information has contributed to an evolution on Madeleine's parents declarations.

All the information that was made public, contributed for the remixing of the story, adapting it to eventual police questions, and to attempts to justify the indicia and consequent proof that was being collected.

Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.

Distant in time Kate's father, the grandfather of the minor, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (children'') to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate had stated.

Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as 'liaison' with the family [NOTE: that is Ricardo Paiva], asked why samples weren't taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such exam would be inviable.

She went further and said that we ' the investigation ' should verify that the kidnapper had sedated Madeleine, to accomplish the action and he had also sedated the twins 'to consummate the act' however she didn't say that at the right moment.

And we know that the sedatives have timings to act and timings to be expelled, that varies between six and 200 hours.

The medical knowledge of the McCann is enough to know such, even if their professional activity never passed by performing toxicology exams.

When the media informed that blood had been detected 'in the car and in the apartment', Kate and members of her family come to the public with the simple excuse that it had been someone, with access to the apartment, to place the evidence.

Now they even admit it was a member of the criminal investigation to place the 'false' evidence (blood and cadaver odour in the apartment and in the car).

Kate in an attempt to justify the blood went even further, informing that on that occasion, Madeleine had, sometimes, nasal haemorrhages.

On the day that a house search was performed, in the residence of the McCann, on the master bedroom, written papers were found as well as a bible, written in English. It was opened on the pages whose copies are annexed here, with the translation.

KIDNAPPING is a situation with which, unfortunately, in the United Kingdom, most of the public opinion is used to, due to the rate of this kind of crime.

Intelligent people should have a minimum of knowledge that the publicity is harming to the investigation of a kidnapping crime and especially to the safety of the kidnapped person.

They should have waited for the decisions from the police authorities, there is strong evidence that the crime scene was altered, some furniture was moved around.

Those changes are indications of simulation.

On the night of the disappearance of the little girl Madeleine the family was contacted by a lady that identified herself with documents that credited her as somebody that worked with minors in the United Kingdom.

She identified herself with documents/certifications used in the UK, into hospitals and centres for the care of minors. She offered her help in whatever was needed.
No doubt this person could have been of valuable help, even about procedures, but she was dismissed.

From everything that was gathered, the facts point in the direction that the death of Madeleine McCann occurred, on the night of May 3rd of 2007, inside the apartment 5A, of the Ocean Club resort, occupied by the couple McCann and by their three children;

There is a coincidence between the marking of cadaver odour and blood, according to the Laboratory Report (partial) annexed to the 'Autos'.

Such markings, occurred behind the sofa of the living room (cadaver and blood odour/DNA), which proves that indubitably such piece of furniture was pushed back by someone, after the death of Madeleine McCann occurred. Because of the weak (small) vestiges recovered at such place, it is to admit as a strong hypothesis that the same was subjected to a wash, at the time the death occurred.

In the same way, the soft toy used by the dead child, found at the head of the bed where she usually slept (see photos about the initial forensics) reveals that someone put it there in a moment posterior to the death, once the bed doesn't have cadaver odour. This is, there occurred an intentional modification in order to simulate a 'picture' that doesn't correspond with the reality;

It must be added that the cadaver odour signalled a strong odour in the bedroom where the McCann slept, which can indicate the moving of the corpse from the actual death scene (living room) to the non visible part of the bedroom;

Furthermore a strong reaction for cadaver odour was made on Kate's clothes, which can indicate that she was in touch with the cadaver;

There was also a strong reaction of cadaver odour in the car used by the McCann (since May 27th 2007), which in conjugation with the blood dog and the forensics present in the 'Autos', that indicate the presence of Madeleine McCann's DNA in the booth of the car, are in order not to exclude a strong hypothesis that this car may have been used to transport the cadaver, 24 days after the death;

It can't also be neglected the indication of the cadaver and blood dog, on the car key, having the laboratory confirmed the existence of Gerald McCann's DNA. This last signalling was obtained by the dogs after the key was put far away from the car and in a place not visible.

From everything that was exposed from the AUTOS, we conclude that:
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;

B) It was performed a simulation of kidnapping;

C) In order to avoid the death [alarm] of the minor before 22H00, it was created a situation of the children's surveillance by the McCann while the children slept;

D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;

E) At this moment, there seems that there aren't strong indicia that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;

F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.

So we suggest that the 'Autos' be sent to the EX.mo Sr. Procurador Geral da R'ublica [General Attorney], in order to:

G) New interrogation of the Arguidos Kate and Gerry McCann;
H) Evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;


On the course of the house search to the residence of the McCann, a manuscript was found, a sort of diary, already photocopied, possibly authored by Kate McCann, and admitting that the same may contain elements that may help to reach the material truth of the facts, WE PROPOSE THAT:

I) The photocopies of such document to be presented to the M.Mo Judge regarding its apprehension, if legal, translation and eventual recovery of elements to bring into the 'Autos' for future investigation.
CONCLUSION

On the tenth of September, two thousand and seven

Chief Inspector

(Tavares de Almeida)
...................

Additional analysis by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida

Dated 3 September 2007.

The police work in the course of an investigation is oriented to the inspection of the place where the crime occurred, and to the recovery of clues, trace evidence and information - documentary and spoken [obtained from people].

The constant analysis of those factors, crossing/joining science with the other things collected that evolve into the reconstruction of the event.

It falls to the investigation to determine the causes and circumstances in/under which the event occurred.

During the present investigation, in accordance with the premise(s) succinctly enumerated, the recovery of items has delineated the investigation.

During the investigation the official case file papers included notice of situations that had been investigated, considering that they could have driven the case to a conclusion.

We are not faced with changes to the objective of the investigation. The end [aim] is always the same, the discovery of the truth.

There remains, still, part of the investigation that explores all the legalities, to answer all the doubts that can be found.

In this way, recently, two dogs, unique in the world, were used.
One of the dogs detects the odour of a cadaver and the other detects the odour of human blood.
Recourse to [In using] these dogs one had to consider the information gathered by scientific means [methods] which confirm the olfactory capacity of dogs being 200 million detector cells, compared with 5 million in humans, also having to consider the training factor.

The use of those dogs, for official record purposes, was recorded on video - image and sound. The work in which the dogs were used included:
- in the apartment 5A that was used by the family at the date of the events;
- in the apartments that were used by of the rest of the group of friends at the date of the events;
- in the residence presently being used by the family;
- in the vehicle used by the family;
- the clothing of the family;
- in the vehicles used by arguido Robert Murat and those used by persons familiar with him [family, friends and associates];
- in the residence and garden of arguido Robert Murat;
- in diverse areas in and around Praia da Luz.

This work resulted in 'alerts' by both dogs:
- cadaver odour [was alerted to]:
* in the lounge, next to one of the windows, of apartment 5A;
* in the current residence of the family, a soft toy of the girl Madeleine;
* on various pieces of clothing;
* on the key of the car used by the family;

- blood odour;
* in the lounge, next to one of the windows, of apartment 5A (the same place
alerted to by the other dog;
* on the key of the key used by the family;
* inside the boot area of the car used by the family.

Before [in front of/faced with] these facts authorised collections were undertaken and the 'pieces' were subjected to laboratory examination, in a manner to confirm the existence of trace evidence and to proceed with its consequent analysis.

***

In following this investigation path it is, absolutely, necessary to proceed with other work, especially to perform a canine inspection of the clothing of members of the group of friends.

Already all of these people are [back] in the UK, carrying on their normal life.
If it is true that, initially, they accompanied the McCann couple, the truth is that presently they show signs of "already they have been [become] sufficiently weary [tired/bored/annoyed] with the situation".

On the other side [hand] there is the necessity to perform work that allows us to know [find out] (!!!) objectively [in an objective way/manner] who is the person Madeleine Beth McCann, which, truthfully, can only be done in the place she lives: - the home and the school.

It is known that the educators / teachers / nannies / domestic employees know the children, another facet [feature/angle] that refers [ alludes] to the side of life in the absence of the parents, when they [the children] are in their 'social' circle with other children of their own age, with the same interests, crucial moments in the formation of the personality, of the person.

***

From the perspective of the investigation, heedful of the items gathered up to now, we are in a situation in which the death of Madeleine Beth McCann occurred on 3 May 2007, inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort in the town of Luz, Lagos.
The work done by the dog team, in Portugal, brought conviction of this slope [ angle] / proposition [ theory] of the investigation, not that it had been ignored previously, but because they [the dogs] could have determined the place where clues / trace evidence could be recovered that could be, scientifically, proven.

To be certain of/in this angle of the investigation, we had to be in the presence of a death whose circumstances had to be determined, there having been a fan [spread, range] of hypotheses [possibilities] in which such [death] may have occurred, through accident, negligence or crime of homicide.

In this way, defining all the circumstantial-ism [taking into account all the circumstances and all the circumstantial evidence], we may be, still [ yet], in the presence of other delictual practices, whose punishment is foreseen [prescribed] in the penal law, such as the hiding [concealment] of a body and the simulation of crime.

The circumstances of relative isolation, they having found themselves outside [away from] 'their' space / natural habitat, in a foreign country, conditions the behaviour of the group, rapidly turning it [the group] into, possible, perpetrators of / accomplices in the event that occurred.

***

Therefore I venture to suggest to you, Sir, that it should be raised for the consideration of the Prosecutor named in the Inquiry, the preparation of two rogatory letters to the British authorities, with anticipated fulfilment, to know [find out]:

1. Considering the manifest will [desire/intention/decision] of non-cooperation with the judicial authorities and police, disputing that they have already done and said everything, it is asked that:
1.1 there be authorised inspection by the dogs of the clothing used by the group of friends of the McCann family, that were in Portugal when the event occurred;
1.2 in the face of the results obtained through the police work if one may inquire of [question] people that are shown necessary and useful to the investigation;
1.3 inspections by dogs be recorded in sound and images [video-taped];
1.4 the same team be nominated for the work as performed the same type of work in Portugal;
1.5 it be determined [ permitted] the seizure of anything that, in the understanding of the investigation, shows itself to be useful for the discovery of the truth or is in any way of interest as material proof [evidence] or should be subjected to laboratory, or other, examination.

2. for the discovery of the truth it is the opinion of the investigation, due to the lack of knowledge about you, your lives and social standing, that:
2.1 entrance to the McCann residence be authorised;
2.2 where shown necessary and being in the interests of the investigation, the taking of pictures of the interior, in any room/building, be authorised;
2.3 it be determined [permitted] the seizure of anything that, in the understanding of the investigation, shows itself to be useful for the discovery of the truth or is in any way of interest as material proof [evidence] or should be subjected to laboratory, or other, examination;
2.4 in the interest of better understanding the personality and affections of the young girl Madeleine, questioning proceeds of:
2.4.1 the teacher of the school that the girl attended;
2.4.2 other persons / teachers with she kept company, in instruction or after-school / extra curricular activities;
2.4.3 the person/people employed in/at the McCann residence;
2.4.4 other persons, non-family, who may be identified and whose association [experience] with the girl Madeleine may contribute to the above objectives.

I submit the above to you, Sir, ...

Inspector Tavares de Almeida

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Chief Inspector is spot on, imho.

CaKeLoveR wrote: The Chief Inspector is spot on, imho.

With this one proviso, – that the PJ were, and still apparently are, acting on what they were TOLD by the Tapas 9.
Namely that everything happened between 2125 and 2150 3/5/7
The alerts by the BRITISH dogs proved that could not possibly have been the case.

This explains the ferocity of the denials about the reliability of the dogs by Team McCann, and the vituperation and venom which
greet any suggestion that they might have been correct.

The McCanns cannot ever allow their alerts to be looked at.
If they did it would show the 'Fund' to be a Fraud, at the very least from August 2007
and their core belief to be preposterous

PeterMac wrote:

CaKeLoveR wrote: The Chief Inspector is spot on, imho.

With this one proviso, – that the PJ were, and still apparently are, acting on what they were TOLD by the Tapas 9.
Namely that everything happened between 2125 and 2150 3/5/7
The alerts by the BRITISH dogs proved that could not possibly have been the case.

This explains the ferocity of the denials about the reliability of the dogs by Team McCann, and the vituperation and venom which
greet any suggestion that they might have been correct.

The McCanns cannot ever allow their alerts to be looked at.
If they did it would show the 'Fund' to be a Fraud, at the very least from August 2007
and their core belief to be preposterous

As far as I can remember, which is all off the top of my head now, so please don't shoot me down, didn't Gerry McCann telephone Mark Harrison's boss to ask how reliable the dogs were.

Why would you do that if you had nothing to hide and no cadaver had ever been hidden in your apartment?

PeterMac wrote:With this one proviso, – that the PJ were, and still apparently are, acting on what they were TOLD by the Tapas 9.
Namely that everything happened between 2125 and 2150 3/5/7

The alerts by the BRITISH dogs proved that could not possibly have been the case.

How so?

IF she was present and alive at 2115 - 2120
AND IF she was gone by 2150
THEN there was insufficient time for cadaverine to develop and be traceable 3 months later in all the places it was.

How long would the cadaver odour take to develop in order to be picked up by the dogs?

Martin Grime said in his rogatory interview that cross-contamination would be immediate as soon as a corpse came into contact with a surface or an object.

Interviewer: How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?

Martin Grime: Cross-contamination is immediate.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Keela was in all the national newspapers in 2007. She was classed as 'remarkable' and could even detect blood on clothes that had been washed. Notably, the Daily mail has remover their article, now pumping out the fake diversionary stories. Also, Keela appeared on South Yorkshire Police website praising her skills, accuracy and the fact hired out, she could earn more than their Chief Constable. Her profile was taken down shortly after the PDL blood and cadaverine hits by Eddie and Keela.

pauloalexandre wrote:How long would the cadaver odour take to develop in order to be picked up by the dogs?

Martin Grime said in his rogatory interview that cross-contamination would be immediate as soon as a corpse came into contact with a surface or an object.

Interviewer: How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?

Martin Grime: Cross-contamination is immediate.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]What M

What is being said is disingenuous, yes, cross-contamination would be immediate when a body has started to rot and cadaver odour has formed, which takes about an hour.

As with the death of Tia Sharp, a dog reacted to odour coming from the loft above the sitting room but it was dismissed by the police as not being significant, but when they went back again (I can't remember how long after that was) a dog reacted strongly to the loft space and it was searched and her body was found wrapped in black bin liners.

cookiemuncher wrote:

pauloalexandre wrote:How long would the cadaver odour take to develop in order to be picked up by the dogs?

Martin Grime said in his rogatory interview that cross-contamination would be immediate as soon as a corpse came into contact with a surface or an object.

Interviewer: How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?

Martin Grime: Cross-contamination is immediate.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]What M

What is being said is disingenuous, yes, cross-contamination would be immediate when a body has started to rot and cadaver odour has formed, which takes about an hour.

How do you know that?

The question should be, how long does it take before a cadaver starts to emit odour. A cadaver that has been dead for several days, placed even briefly on a surface will surely emit a stronger scent for dogs to pick up than a corpse that has lain only for perhaps an hour after death before removal?

cookiemuncher wrote:What is being said is disingenuous, yes, cross-contamination would be immediate when a body has started to rot and cadaver odour has formed, which takes about an hour.

Martin Grime said in his rogatory interview that cross-contamination would be immediate as soon as a corpse came into contact with a surface or an object.

Interviewer: How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?

Martin Grime: Cross-contamination is immediate.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Better to leave the subject of forensics to the experts, or failing that, reference the source.
....................

disingenuous

/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs/

adjective

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

I read broken skin / wounds are also a factor in the process.

Quite so!

Another thing so frequently overlooked, Eddie the EVRD was trained to detect the scent of bodily fluids, in addition to the scent of human death.

The forensic teams were required to analyze and identify the source of the dog alerts harvested by Martin Grime with his dogs.

Then came the negatives ....

EVRD

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced
training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent'
odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not
contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material.

The E.R.V.D. has successfully in training and in operational casework located
Human cadaders, whether in the whole or parts thereof, deposited surface or
sub-surface to a depth of approximately 1 metre shortly after death (though
precise times are not determinable) to the advanced stages of decomposition
and putrefaction through the skeletal. This includes incinerated remains even if
large quantities of accelerant have been involved. The dog has successfully in
training and in operational casework located a human cadavers in water either
from the bank siade or when deployed in a boat.

The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where
there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious
material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. This may be
achieved by the dog being deployed directly to the subject area or by scent
samples being taken by remote means on sterile gauze pads. The gauze
pads are then 'screened' in a line - up formation with the inclusion of a number
of control samples and blank sterile pads.

The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to
identify the venting or exhaust channels of the scent through fissures in
bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce
the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable
environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where
controls may be included to increase assurity.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But the thread is being taken off course.

As said in the introduction, this report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, is of vital importance when weighing up the case McCann v. Portugal.

Let's keep focus.

Verdi wrote:But the thread is being taken off course.

As said in the introduction,  this report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, is of vital importance when weighing up the case McCann v. Portugal.

Let's keep focus.

Verdi

I hope you weren't alluding to me, as if you'd read my posts, I can't remember what section it was under, I mentioned about the cadaver dogs that were brought in when April Jones went missing, they were highly trained to detect cadavers under water.  I'm referring to your second from bottom paragraph.

I also mentioned that there was a river running through her town or nearby that flowed into the sea, that's why the specialist underwater cadaver searching dogs were brought in.

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation: 10thSeptember 2007

Verdi wrote:

Better to leave the subject of forensics to the experts, or failing that, reference the source.
....................


 

Yes sure.

Experts at the FSS for instance ?

Sometimes '' experts '' have no expertise whatsoever.

Even the FSS could have been misled. Everyone else was.

The report by Tavares de Almeida is the most important document in the PJ files, in my view. It neatly puts everything into perspective, from how the investigation began to how it came to the damning conclusions that Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A and that an abduction narrative was concocted from the start. Whatever mistakes the PJ may have made or whatever false leads that were being put out to divert their attention away from the evidence, I firmly believe, based in the diligences they conducted, that the PJ did the best they could with the information that they were given.

They obviously knew that the McCanns and their friends were not telling the truth about what happened on 3rd May, given their contradictory claims. One of those claims was the alleged visit of David Payne at apartment 5A on that day. There are multiple discrepancies to this story, but the most revealing of them all is cited by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida:

Tavares de Almeida wrote:The day, 03 of May of 2007, had gone by, until dinner time, in a natural way according to the adopted style.

After getting the children from the Children's centres and the creche they went to the apartment, little after 17:35h.

But Kate went running for half an hour at the beach and then went to the apartment and' Gerald went to play tennis.

While the tennis play was taking place another element of the group that had been in touch with Kate, in the apartment, in a period of time that could have taken between 30 seconds, according to Kate, and 30 minutes, according to Gerald.

In thirty seconds we may ask if everything is well and if anything is needed, little more.
In thirty minutes we can go ahead and make something that is needed from us.

Spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The fact that this 30 minute/30 second discrepancy exists, means that this was discussed between Gerry and Kate, prior to their arguido interviews.

That right there says the David Payne visit is a fabrication.

The next obvious question is - why did they need to invent this story?

pauloalexandre wrote:That right there says the David Payne visit is a fabrication.

The next obvious question is - why did they need to invent this story?

I truly believe every story they invented was intended to add weight to a living healthy Madeleine, right up to the abduction window (excuse the pun), between the time Gerry McCann alleges he checked his children and Kate McCann's alleged discovery at approximately 22:00h.

Verdi wrote:Quite so!  

Another thing so frequently overlooked, Eddie the EVRD was trained to detect the scent of bodily fluids, in addition to the scent of human death.

The forensic teams were required to analyze and identify the source of the dog alerts harvested by Martin Grime with his dogs.

Then came the negatives ....

Wouldn't bodily fluids have been found in other areas of the flat though if that was what Eddie was alerting to?

webplodder wrote:

Verdi wrote:Quite so!  

Another thing so frequently overlooked, Eddie the EVRD was trained to detect the scent of bodily fluids, in addition to the scent of human death.

The forensic teams were required to analyze and identify the source of the dog alerts harvested by Martin Grime with his dogs.

Then came the negatives ....

Wouldn't bodily fluids have been found in other areas of the flat though if that was what Eddie was alerting to?

Excerpt from PeterMac's (retired Police Superindentent) theory:

"She fell down the back of the sofa, and because the gap was narrow and she was sleepy, was unable to break her fall with her hands. She may have struck her head or face first on the sill as she slipped forward. She landed head first on the terrazzo floor, and some time during the night died of a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage, with light bleeding from the ear and possibly the nose and mouth.

Discussion - The ‘Eeyore’ pyjamas were washed because of the “large brown stain” (p.63) and then dried and photographed on the blue sofa, but then they became confused about what they had said, and why they would have taken a photo of the pyjamas in the first place, and subsequently held them up at a news conference in Berlin on 6th June 2007, describing them as “the ones she was abducted in”. This was confirmed by uncle John McCann when he reported that Amelie had been dressed in the garments and had immediately identified them saying “Maddie’s jammies. Where is Maddie ?”

Bleeding would have been confined to some small leakage from an ear - possibly including cerebrospinal fluid, typical of brain damage - and from the mouth and nose, which stops once the heart stops.

The parents came back late, crept very quietly into their room and went to bed without checking the children

Discussion - There is evidence from other sources that on some nights the parents stayed out into the early hours, and in the book this is admitted (p.60)

In the morning they see the empty bed, and during the frantic search find Madeline’s body behind the sofa, by now stiff and cold and leaking bodily fluids."


Link to full theory and discussion:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Although Eddie was trained to alert to bodily fluids aswell, his job in that respect was done at the back of the sofa, confirmed by Keela - his other skill was then to find the cadaver scent, which he did in many other places

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

To my mind there is simply no way that you wouldn't check on your 3 young children after returning from a night out. It just wouldn't be the case. Even the briefest glance to put your mind at rest before retiring yourself would have been the order of the day (or night). I'd say it's almost a certainty. EVEN more so if they had been left unattended and this is why I don't think they were. "I wouldn't have taken a chance." Is confirmation enough for me.

miffy8 wrote:EVEN more so if they had been left unattended and this is why I don't think they were. "I wouldn't have taken a chance." Is confirmation enough for me.

I agree!

As I've said many times in the past, even if all eight of the group were selfish and irresponsible enough to leave their respective children alone every night, there was a grandmother in their midst.  I don't believe for a second a grandmother would condone such behaviour.

Why was the grandmother even there, it's not as though she joined the groups fun and games. A general dog's body perhaps, to fetch and carry and do the odd spot of babysitting?

Verdi wrote:

miffy8 wrote:EVEN more so if they had been left unattended and this is why I don't think they were. "I wouldn't have taken a chance." Is confirmation enough for me.

I agree!

As I've said many times in the past, even if all eight of the group were selfish and irresponsible enough to leave their respective children alone every night, there was a grandmother in their midst.  I don't believe for a second a grandmother would condone such behaviour.

Why was the grandmother even there, it's not as though she joined the groups fun and games.  A general dog's body perhaps, to fetch and carry and do the odd spot of babysitting?

What's your theory for the presence of blood and cadaver behind the sofa and various other locations?

If there's one thing I've learned from this case it's to disregard timeframes and just concentrate on what's being said and therein lies the truth.
Ordering it, recognising where attempts are made to deviate from it and fielding them out is where the skill comes in. What I see here is a woman wrestling with the presentation of an abduction fabrication implicating herself as negligent in the process whilst on the same hand making almost desperate attempts to counter it as evidenced by language such as 'I wouldn't have taken a chance'. IE I have to say I left them at night but I didn't really. 
As you say, it makes no sense for a grandmother figure to tag along with a group of holidaying friends and their young children to not call upon that person to fulfill the role of babysitter and I think they fully intended this to happen but tragedy struck early on as is the widely held view.
I don't believe for one minute that the McCann children were left unattended at night, but I do think there is a possibility that they were left unattended for a much shorter period of time during the early evening. 
Kate sets the idyllic scene of the children all sitting down in their pyjamas, drinking milk, looking at books while she took a shower.
It might have started off like this but, as all of us mothers know, the minute you turn your back and leave the room, young, excited children don't sit still for long. These kids were on holiday in new, unfamiliar surroundings. Did Kate take that shower or did she pop over to see her fellow holidaymakers for a quick chat about the plan for the forthcoming evening, safe in the knowledge that her three little angels were sitting nicely looking at storybooks and the time ran away with her? In the meantime, the kids were doing what all kids do when left to their own devices - tear around the room chasing each other and jumping on the furniture. It could so easily happen to anyone.

Jill Havern wrote:

Verdi wrote:

miffy8 wrote:EVEN more so if they had been left unattended and this is why I don't think they were. "I wouldn't have taken a chance." Is confirmation enough for me.

I agree!

As I've said many times in the past, even if all eight of the group were selfish and irresponsible enough to leave their respective children alone every night, there was a grandmother in their midst.  I don't believe for a second a grandmother would condone such behaviour.

Why was the grandmother even there, it's not as though she joined the groups fun and games.  A general dog's body perhaps, to fetch and carry and do the odd spot of babysitting?

What's your theory for the presence of blood and cadaver behind the sofa and various other locations?

Complex .. but off the cuff - cross contamination.  The difficulty is of course the absence of positive forensic analysis to correlate theory.  It can be argued that the UK's Forensic Science Service was at fault by fair means or foul but that is only supposition.  Without proof it's of no consequence.

End of the day, even if the specialist dogs alerted to human blood and the scent of death, it's not possible to determine the source without constructive forensic analysis.  This is not available for consideration.

The PJ forensic team, for I trust the Portuguese investigation implicitly, forensically examined apartment 5a thoroughly, of course after the crime scene had been contaminated by the McCanns their friends and a whole lot more unwanted trespassers.  The tests for traces of blood proved negative, it wasn't until the specialist dogs Eddie and Keela were seconded from the UK to sniff-out evidence that traces of blood and dead body odour were detected.  Not corroborated by forensic analysis, unfortunately.

It's late in the day, I'm not inclined at present to dig out all the documented references but I will just use one example - Kate McCann's harlequin pants!  Said pants were of interest to the specialist dog during the underground car park examination.  The self same harlequin pants were worn by Kate McCann on different occasions - including when returning to the UK in September 2007.  Think what you like about Kate McCann but does anyone truly believe she would wear the same clothing she wore when handling or in contact with her daughters corpse? Or dress her son in a t-shirt that had been in contact with a dead body?

It's macabre!

Anymore than I believe the corpse of a little daughter was temporarily stuffed in a bedroom cupboard.  Transported in a convenient vessel such as a sports bag (tenuous) which was later placed in a bedroom cupboard - a distinct possibility.  

Cross contamination!

Then, late July early August 2007, Kate McCann's and items of the children's clothing were available for inspection but what of Gerry McCann's? It was reported the McCanns had prior intelligence of the dogs inspection, so much so a machine load of soggy washing was found on site.

The more you think about this, the more apparent a miscarriage of justice by the hand of the UK authorities.  Was Martin Grime compromised?

ETA: It's important to read this carefully..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]