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

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..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14767p325-documented-evidence#430227

Great post and reference ,thanks for this.

OK. I Understand....

PESKOV wrote: OK. I Understand....

Do you - really?

The March hare/April fool is prematurely on the rampage ....