The dogs and the "Towel"

Nina wrote:

Olive_Boyle wrote:I said before that I don't think that they planted another child to act as Madeleine as the creche staff would recognise that it wasn't her when they saw the real photo's released afterwards. I'm sure at least one would have been suspicious and said something.

Another reason why I think this scenario is farfetched is because what child of that age would be able to lie about being someone they are not?

A 3 year old child wouldn't go along with suddenly being called a different name to their own by creche staff they hardly know. Even if the parents had told them to pretend that there name was Madeleine, they wouldn't understand what was being asked of them and wouldn't be able to keep up the pretence. The child would say "My name isn't Madeleine it is ..... " or ignore the person calling them as its not them. Very young children hate to lie to strangers, you just couldn't make them do it, especially not that young.

I don't know much about the creche records but didn't all of the tapas lot put their children in their at some point. So wouldn't they then need a cover child for the child that acted as Madeleine if you see what I mean.

That's an awful lot of relying on other people to act in a certain way or to not be very observant that could be very easily caught out.

The McCann's really arn't that clever/stupid.

But what if the girl was also called Madelene, just a different spelling?

I just can't see that it is feasable. Even if she were called Madeleine. Apart form the nannies, there were other parents who dropped off and picked up their children at the starting and finishing times, surely they would have seen this girl with the McCanns, they must have chatted at some point . The photos of Madeleine were all over the media, and even if they didn't recognise the first photo put out, they surely would have seen the tennis ball photo of Madeleine and seen the difference. Unless of course she was almost identical, which again I don't think possible. I just can't see it somehow. Having said that, I still think there is something wrong with the creche records.

candyfloss wrote: I just can't see it somehow. Having said that, I still think there is something wrong with the creche records.

I think the substitute poses more questions than it answers. And I agree with you on the creche records.

If the creche didn't give out identity bracelets and there wasn't a separate am and pm sheet per MW procedures how do we know the parents signed their kids in and out every day? I think the "forgeries" are because the same people signed a few names to recreate the records. It's another leaky sieve. Did CP and CB have a similar function that week but not exactly that one?

Nina wrote:

Olive_Boyle wrote:I said before that I don't think that they planted another child to act as Madeleine as the creche staff would recognise that it wasn't her when they saw the real photo's released afterwards. I'm sure at least one would have been suspicious and said something.

Another reason why I think this scenario is farfetched is because what child of that age would be able to lie about being someone they are not?

A 3 year old child wouldn't go along with suddenly being called a different name to their own by creche staff they hardly know. Even if the parents had told them to pretend that there name was Madeleine, they wouldn't understand what was being asked of them and wouldn't be able to keep up the pretence. The child would say "My name isn't Madeleine it is ..... " or ignore the person calling them as its not them. Very young children hate to lie to strangers, you just couldn't make them do it, especially not that young.

I don't know much about the creche records but didn't all of the tapas lot put their children in their at some point. So wouldn't they then need a cover child for the child that acted as Madeleine if you see what I mean.

That's an awful lot of relying on other people to act in a certain way or to not be very observant that could be very easily caught out.

The McCann's really arn't that clever/stupid.

But what if the girl was also called Madelene, just a different spelling?

Who else had a daughter called Madeleine? And what are the chances that they looked like each other? I don't mean to sound rude but its all a bit clutching at straws to fit the theory isn't it?

Maybe this might help get a 'picture' of the nannies employed at MW resorts from undercover BBC reporter Imogen Wilcox in Dahab, Egypt. And the nannies that were investigated at the MW in the Alps. I get the strong impression that the nannies employed probably wouldn't have much idea of which child was who

And to quote Bridget O'Donnell "Our children made friends in the kiddie club and at the drop-off, we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group. They were bound to boss around the two boys."

--------
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/03_march/05/whistleblower.shtml

•Adult to child ratios are not met – The required adult to child ratios were not always met – At Mark Warner (Dahab, Egypt), an extra child arrives at the crèche but no one knows who she is

Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers. Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.

Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications. Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway

------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1482383/Holiday-ski-resort-nannies-sacked-for-endangering-toddlers-lives.html

Mark Warner, the British holiday company which promotes itself as being familyfriendly, has been forced to launch an investigation into the standards of its childcare after two of its nannies were sacked for endangering the lives of a group of toddlers.

The incident earlier this month at the company's hotel in the French ski resort of Les Deux Alpes involved two British nannies failing to supervise a group of children on a busy main road. It was recorded on video by the parents of one of the children.

"The nannies were chatting away as cars and lorries passed by, totally oblivious to the children they were supposedly supervising. They could have been abducted or run over and the nannies wouldn't have noticed."

------

As for photos, why did Jim Gamble set up a website for all the holidaymakers there at the time to upload to, but then never passed them onto the PJ? He said that he did not want scenery shots or family shots “but look at your prints and see if there are, for instance, people in the background of the picture that at first you may not have noticed.

Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ recalls that, with the consent from Portuguese authorities, an appeal was made for tourists to send in photos from the day and the night of Maddie’s disappearance. The purpose was “to identify anyone suspicious who might appear looking at the family”, he says.

But despite “much that arrived at the English police, none of those images ever reached us”.

What were they really looking for?

Good one JD! That is, perhaps a face that might be known publicly or in certain circles?

Photographs with 'people in the background' just like the one of Maddie in the background with the Edmunds in the foreground. But vice versa so to speak.

Olive_Boyle wrote:I said before that I don't think that they planted another child to act as Madeleine as the creche staff would recognise that it wasn't her when they saw the real photo's released afterwards. I'm sure at least one would have been suspicious and said something.

Another reason why I think this scenario is farfetched is because what child of that age would be able to lie about being someone they are not?

A 3 year old child wouldn't go along with suddenly being called a different name to their own by creche staff they hardly know. Even if the parents had told them to pretend that there name was Madeleine, they wouldn't understand what was being asked of them and wouldn't be able to keep up the pretence. The child would say "My name isn't Madeleine it is ..... " or ignore the person calling them as its not them. Very young children hate to lie to strangers, you just couldn't make them do it, especially not that young.

I don't know much about the creche records but didn't all of the tapas lot put their children in their at some point. So wouldn't they then need a cover child for the child that acted as Madeleine if you see what I mean.

That's an awful lot of relying on other people to act in a certain way or to not be very observant that could be very easily caught out.

The McCann's really arn't that clever/stupid.

Olive, the theory as proposed by Kikoraton and others does not for one minute suggest that a substitute child should have been asked to lie about who she is and sustain such a lie for a week. If anyone who believes there may be substance to the substitute theory suggested such a thing, well that would make them as stupid as you say the McCanns aren't wouldn't it? Best to check out a theory first before dismissing it entirely, if having researched the evidence you still can't take it on board, fine, but check it out before arriving at a conclusion.

Olive_Boyle wrote:

Nina wrote:

Olive_Boyle wrote:I said before that I don't think that they planted another child to act as Madeleine as the creche staff would recognise that it wasn't her when they saw the real photo's released afterwards. I'm sure at least one would have been suspicious and said something.

Another reason why I think this scenario is farfetched is because what child of that age would be able to lie about being someone they are not?

A 3 year old child wouldn't go along with suddenly being called a different name to their own by creche staff they hardly know. Even if the parents had told them to pretend that there name was Madeleine, they wouldn't understand what was being asked of them and wouldn't be able to keep up the pretence. The child would say "My name isn't Madeleine it is ..... " or ignore the person calling them as its not them. Very young children hate to lie to strangers, you just couldn't make them do it, especially not that young.

I don't know much about the creche records but didn't all of the tapas lot put their children in their at some point. So wouldn't they then need a cover child for the child that acted as Madeleine if you see what I mean.

That's an awful lot of relying on other people to act in a certain way or to not be very observant that could be very easily caught out.

The McCann's really arn't that clever/stupid.

But what if the girl was also called Madelene, just a different spelling?

Who else had a daughter called Madeleine? And what are the chances that they looked like each other? I don't mean to sound rude but its all a bit clutching at straws to fit the theory isn't it?

Once again, how can you say it is "clutching at straws to fit a theory" when you haven't looked at the theory. You are applying those words to your idea of a theory, not the theory itself.

As it happens, such a child as you suggest above exists though I will not mention more of her on this forum. If you wish to know more, check out "Kikoratton" on twitter it is explained there, or begin with examining the creche record thread here.

tigger wrote:Good one JD! That is, perhaps a face that might be known publicly or in certain circles?

Photographs with 'people in the background' just like the one of Maddie in the background with the Edmunds in the foreground. But vice versa so to speak.

jd wrote:As for photos, why did Jim Gamble set up a website for all the holidaymakers there at the time to upload to, but then never passed them onto the PJ? He said that he did not want scenery shots or family shots “but look at your prints and see if there are, for instance, people in the background of the picture that at first you may not have noticed.

Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ recalls that, with the consent from Portuguese authorities, an appeal was made for tourists to send in photos from the day and the night of Maddie’s disappearance. The purpose was “to identify anyone suspicious who might appear looking at the family”, he says.

But despite “much that arrived at the English police, none of those images ever reached us”.

What were they really looking for?

Yes. And why specifically only those taken between dates 19th April and 3rd May?

monkey mind wrote:

Olive_Boyle wrote:

Nina wrote:

Olive_Boyle wrote:I said before that I don't think that they planted another child to act as Madeleine as the creche staff would recognise that it wasn't her when they saw the real photo's released afterwards. I'm sure at least one would have been suspicious and said something.

Another reason why I think this scenario is farfetched is because what child of that age would be able to lie about being someone they are not?

A 3 year old child wouldn't go along with suddenly being called a different name to their own by creche staff they hardly know. Even if the parents had told them to pretend that there name was Madeleine, they wouldn't understand what was being asked of them and wouldn't be able to keep up the pretence. The child would say "My name isn't Madeleine it is ..... " or ignore the person calling them as its not them. Very young children hate to lie to strangers, you just couldn't make them do it, especially not that young.

I don't know much about the creche records but didn't all of the tapas lot put their children in their at some point. So wouldn't they then need a cover child for the child that acted as Madeleine if you see what I mean.

That's an awful lot of relying on other people to act in a certain way or to not be very observant that could be very easily caught out.

The McCann's really arn't that clever/stupid.

But what if the girl was also called Madelene, just a different spelling?

Who else had a daughter called Madeleine? And what are the chances that they looked like each other? I don't mean to sound rude but its all a bit clutching at straws to fit the theory isn't it?

Once again, how can you say it is "clutching at straws to fit a theory" when you haven't looked at the theory. You are applying those words to your idea of a theory, not the theory itself.

As it happens, such a child as you suggest above exists though I will not mention more of her on this forum. If you wish to know more, check out "Kikoratton" on twitter it is explained there, or begin with examining the creche record thread here.

Ok fair enough, I was just trying to give my opinion on what I read in this thread. To be honest I can't be arsed to read about creche records and stuff. I think its a distraction that isn't necessary, trying to find answers to questions that just arn't there. My theories are simple but as I'm not very articulate I'd best avoid this part of the forum.

I'll stick to the breaking news as thats much more my interest.

Can I bring this back on topic i.e. The dogs and the towel

Olive_Boyle wrote:[
Ok fair enough, I was just trying to give my opinion on what I read in this thread. To be honest I can't be arsed to read about creche records and stuff. I think its a distraction that isn't necessary, trying to find answers to questions that just arn't there. My theories are simple but as I'm not very articulate I'd best avoid this part of the forum.

I'll stick to the breaking news as thats much more my interest.

Olive,

I wasn’t being personal so no need to take it as such. I was simply pointing out the fact that if you are going to dismiss someone’s thoughts out of hand, it may be better to have some insight into what they are talking about.

As for “answers to questions that just aren’t there”, this case is far from simple, if it were otherwise it would have been put to bed 5 years ago.

Personally speaking, I prefer to keep a mind open to all possibilities and weigh the evidence accordingly otherwise one ends up shoving square pegs into round holes or leaving evidence out completely. Look what happens when you try to wrap the evidence around an abduction theory, it kind of produces a rather messy jigsaw, and if an accident ultimately were not the correct conclusion, the same thing would happen there.

Keeping things simple is good, but Occam’s razor isn’t a steadfast rule.

tuom wrote:Can I bring this back on topic i.e. The dogs and the towel

Tuon,

My apologies, not my intention to hijack the thread. Sorry 'bout that.

monkey mind wrote:

tuom wrote:Can I bring this back on topic i.e. The dogs and the towel

Tuon,

My apologies, not my intention to hijack the thread. Sorry 'bout that.

No problem MM I need to read more about the searches and timeline of May3/4

Was this search(s) the ones where the dog(s) went to the supermarket carpark and/or carpack more or less opposite 5a?

How sure were the Police even that towel was used by and has a scent of Madeleine ?
If anyone know can tell us if that towel was used to check for DNA. Or if at least has been taken away by the PJ.
If it didn't contain Madeleine DNA, couldn't have reduced chance to have Maddie scent on it?

As in this case many things which happened had a big indication of pre-planed in advance, why couldn't be also that towel have been prepared in advance just in intention to mislead the investigators, which is what the Mccanns have been doing from the start?

Obviously, the Mccanns knew very well that after the alert, the PJ will bring in the dogs for the scent trail, where i suspect the Mccanns could have created in advance that scent trail with that towel or others clothes, intentionally just to mislead the whole investigation from the start. When the PJ arrived with dogs scents they must have been handed straight away that towel, which was used already to create a decoy scent trail.

Isn't a very good way to confuse and mislead the whole investigation from the start?

Just to direct the investigators in the south and not in the north.

Just a thought.

I think I remember reading that the PJ suspected the towel belonged to Gerry rather than Madeleine.

How sure were the Police even that towel was used by and has a scent of Madeleine ?

They are not, it was a towel given to them by the mccanns which in reality could be anybodies. There is no proof it was a towel used by Maddie

The 4 separate dogs used were not trained to alert to cadaver or blood, they were trained to alert to the scent on the towel (and blanket). What the 4 dogs did separately alert to, which was the scent from the towel/blanket, was the floor above the mccanns to apartment 5J and along the corridor past the paynes down to the car park. A big note: not to the top of the road of jane tanners sighting! nor from the mccanns shutters

This says to me something very obvious. The towel given to the police was used by whoever was in apartment 5J. Whoever was in that apartment left before 10pm on May 3rd from their apartment and got into a car in the car park.

From the mccanns POV, they would not use just any old towel/blanket. There is no DNA of Maddie in apartment 5A, they couldn't use the towel given to the police for the DNA and gerry mccann had to go back to Leicester to get a sample. What does this say? The towel and blanket used for the tracker dogs to alert to Maddies scent does not have any of her DNA on it, so how can the dogs alert to Maddies scent!

The 'people' living in apartment 5J the dogs alerted to from the scent of the towel they were given, and why the dogs went ballistic outside the apartment door. Doesn't take much thought. The mccanns knew whoever was in apartment 5J would be off the premises that night and therefore the dogs could not alert to a human being that was on OC premises. Probably one of their business associates.

The mcanns may be incompetent doctors but they know all this stuff, and murat worked for Norfolk police in his past too. I would bet that they thought the trail of the scent would also convince the gullible public that Maddie was abducted and taken to a car in the car park. What they didn't realise was just how good these dogs are and could smell through a wooden door into an apartment imo

Thanks JD

I appreciate a lot your clarification.

Zozo wrote:Thanks JD

I appreciate a lot your clarification.

Thank you Zozo. Just giving my opinion from the obvious and as realistically as possible from the known facts. The confusion the mccanns and their cronies give is imo to it cloud over, I guess this is the whole point of their abduction fairy story

They 'wanted' the dogs - which means they were prepared for them imo.

3rd of May 2007
23.40 Gerry calls Trish Cameron (11.13 minutes)
....
Sandy Cameron statement: “On the night of Thursday, May 3, 2007, Patricia received a telephone call from Gerry informing us of the disappearance of Madeleine. Gerry manifested all those emotions one expects from a father who has lost a child in the circumstances. He was distraught and spoke at the same time he cried. He seemed frustrated with the slowness of the searches in Portugal, with the fact that the borders had not been closed, and with the fact that sniffer dogs were not being used. Patricia and I contacted the British Embassy to try and help in this regard.”
unquote

But that call had been deleted from the mobile. It was made however, since the 23.40 call does appear on the pings.
His second call to Cameron was at 00.05. Three seconds.

It now occurs to me - thanks to jd and other bright lights here - that the whole Smith performance was specifically to get dogs to follow that trail. Perhaps the necessary towel was ready and waiting for the dogs.
For if dogs had been deployed that night it is very likely that they would have followed the scent into PdL. Now the man and child who were seen by the pizza seller get more interesting too. Coming back via the beach would lose the scent if you walked through the sea.
Perhaps we need to look at this again.

See also 'Dogs, more dogs, fridges and apartments'

I have never doubted that the whole towel thing was a set up by the McCanns. Gerry has long led us to believe he "asked" for the dogs. He never specifically says Eddie and Keela, but when the subject of dogs is discussed (and usually when "the dogs" are talked about it is those two dogs being referred to, imo) Gerry is quick to say he asked for them. He asked for these dogs. We know also he had an image in his mind of what should happen when somebody goes missing, closing of borders, helicopters, indeed the FBI according to Gerry, and of course dogs. Not EVRD though.

As far as I undersand these dogs, they work in a number of ways. One type by sniffing the air and obtaining a live scent, others sniff using skin particles etc that we shed into the atmosphere as we go about our daily business. Not a very technical explanation I know, sorry.

We know little Madeleine did the same thing, in the same places, every single day. You would expect therefore that her scent would be stronger along the paths she normally used, as she did so repetitively for almost a week. Should there not have been a relatively strong scent somehwere within the Ocean Club complex ?

Maybe my understanding of the description on what happened is wrong but these dogs did not appear to get a strong scent at all. Either she was not there, the dogs are usesless or the towel they were given to work with was contaminated with mutiple scents or another persons altogether. My vote is another person altogether.

Great thread and very thought provoking.

What bothers me is this - if as the McCanns claim MM was abducted and carried out of the apartment (as also JT claims) then the dogs would have no trail to follow as she was carried and didn't walk.

The last known place that MM attended - so we are lead to believe - is the creche, so she walked there and or walked back - so surely the dogs would have picked up that scent and followed that straight to the creche.

As they seem not to have followed the last known steps of MM then the scent on the towel cannot have been hers and is the trail up to the apartment upstairs not that of GM or KM who for some reason have been up there in the last few hours of that evening?? And to do what??

Going back to this topic,

On this evening Kate is supposed to have bathed all 3 children whilst Gerry was playing tennis.  David Payne was supposed to have called around as Kate was just taking a shower herself.

Having bathed the three children, she would have put towels around them all and dried them before dressing them.  Quite a job really for one person on their own.  The towels would probably have been dropped to floor and picked up once all the kids were dressed.  Then what did she do with them? Bundle them all up together and put them to wash? Put them back in the bathroom?  How would she know who used which towel? What about her own scent? She would have wiped the kids.  What if one of the kids dropped their towel and she picked up Madeleines to finish drying them?

The idea of giving the dogs a towel is ridiculous.  And didn't both Kate and Gerry go in the direction of the supermarket earlier?  In that case, well done to the dogs, they followed someones scent and ended up at the same supermarket.  There you go Gerry, not so unreliable, are they?