Re: Dogs, more dogs, fridges and apartments.....

by **tigger** 11.10.12 17:48

jd wrote:
So dogs, requested by Gerry that very evening, within an hour of reporting the abduction. Dogs were expected earlier and to follow the scent laid out to PdL is my guess. Giving them a towel used by Gerry - as the GNR/PJ suspected.
The route to PdL was never 'found' by the dogs.

Imo this is why gerry mccann was getting aggrieved about where the search dogs were that night...Needed them to follow the scent of whoever it was on that towel

Control is everything....

by jd 11.10.12 18:05

tigger wrote:
jd wrote:
So dogs, requested by Gerry that very evening, within an hour of reporting the abduction. Dogs were expected earlier and to follow the scent laid out to PdL is my guess. Giving them a towel used by Gerry - as the GNR/PJ suspected.
The route to PdL was never 'found' by the dogs.

Imo this is why gerry mccann was getting aggrieved about where the search dogs were that night...Needed them to follow the scent of whoever it was on that towel

Control is everything....

Except for the Smiths sighting...this is one they could not control and why they dismiss it, and then changed the facts of what Smith said in his statement to match jane tanners in the Madddie was Here mocumentary!! And got away with it whilst in the very same breath suing other people for speaking the actual truth!!! This is so sickening

by Ayniia 21.10.13 14:58

Snifferdog wrote:
It is quite a coincidence the the hire car "also" had rotting meat in it as well.
Was the rotting meat deliberately planted in this fridge?
Is this the self same fridge that was mentioned in GM"s blog, the one that GM mentions was dumped?
Who did apartment 5J belong to? Pity the PJ did not investigate 5J sooner.
Does anyone know who apartment 5J belonged to?

Very interesting food for thought... because IF the rotting meat was planted there and the GNR dogs alerted to it, seems obvious why the MCCanns later tried to explain Eddie and Keela findings with "rotting meat from garbage bags and nappies ". All IMHO of course.

by **Hobs** 21.10.13 20:59

What interests me is the fact the mccanns used a towel to provide the dogs with a scent. A towel which could be tainted with scent from the twins and perhaps even kate and gerry especially since they claim there was only 1 toothbrush.

Why not give the dogs the obvious items to scent and thus trace Maddie.

I am talking about the clothing she was wearing that day, perhaps other days if no laundry had been done.

Her clothes would be reeking with her scent especially her underwear.

Why not use what was known to have been worn by her that day and was thus fresh and failry uncontaminated by someone else?

Why use something that no one knows had been in contact with Maddie?

Could it have been the parents where laying a false scent trail for the dogs to follow?

A live trail that may or may not have been Maddie rather than a trail that we know was Maddie.

Could it be that following the trail of Maddie may have led to a place they didn't want known?

by sami 21.10.13 21:17

J

Hobs wrote:What interests me is the fact the mccanns used a towel to provide the dogs with a scent. A towel which could be tainted with scent from the twins and perhaps even kate and gerry especially since they claim there was only 1 toothbrush.

Why not give the dogs the obvious items to scent and thus trace Maddie.

I am talking about the clothing she was wearing that day, perhaps other days if no laundry had been done.

Her clothes would be reeking with her scent especially her underwear.

Why not use what was known to have been worn by her that day and was thus fresh and failry uncontaminated by someone else?

Why use something that no one knows had been in contact with Maddie?

Could it have been the parents where laying a false scent trail for the dogs to follow?

A live trail that may or may not have been Maddie rather than a trail that we know was Maddie.

Could it be that following the trail of Maddie may have led to a place they didn't want known?

I think I've said this before but the thing that strikes me about those dogs is that they never tracked her scent to the crèche. It is the one place we can be almost certain Madeleine went to, yet the dogs did not go there.

There is no definitive proof the scent tracked was Madeleine's, not least because there is no definitive proof the sample they tracked was hers from the towel.

by Jaci 21.10.13 23:25

Snifferdog wrote:
It is quite a coincidence the the hire car "also" had rotting meat in it as well.
Was the rotting meat deliberately planted in this fridge?
Is this the self same fridge that was mentioned in GM"s blog, the one that GM mentions was dumped?
Who did apartment 5J belong to? Pity the PJ did not investigate 5J sooner.
Does anyone know who apartment 5J belonged to?

Working on the assumption that 5J is privately owned I did a search for holiday apartments at the Ocean Club. Could this be it? The photos from the balcony seem to suggest it might be in the right area?

http://www.holidaylettings.co.uk/rentals/praia-da-luz/324731

The the letting name is Sue K ... not much help but might be a beginning?

Please delete my post if I'm wrong.

by listener 22.10.13 0:05

Hobs wrote:What interests me is the fact the mccanns used a towel to provide the dogs with a scent. A towel which could be tainted with scent from the twins and perhaps even kate and gerry especially since they claim there was only 1 toothbrush.

Why not give the dogs the obvious items to scent and thus trace Maddie.

I am talking about the clothing she was wearing that day, perhaps other days if no laundry had been done.

Her clothes would be reeking with her scent especially her underwear.

Why not use what was known to have been worn by her that day and was thus fresh and failry uncontaminated by someone else?

Why use something that no one knows had been in contact with Maddie?

Could it have been the parents where laying a false scent trail for the dogs to follow?

A live trail that may or may not have been Maddie rather than a trail that we know was Maddie.

Could it be that following the trail of Maddie may have led to a place they didn't want known?

Why would the Handler not ask for an unwashed garment, rather than the towel? Unless told only Madeleine had used that towel (unlike the shared toothbrush)?
A shared toothbrush - All three! Sounds absolute nonsense to me nah

Edit- I have no experience of caring for more than 1 toddler at a time, so stand to be corrected - Anyone?

by Searcher 22.10.13 0:51

This may be more suitable for a timeline thread, but have just found this video - c. 11 mins - on YouTube which discusses an earlier event than 3 May. Worth watching right through:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbqRmhBFpQY

by Guest 04.03.14 9:49

Snifferdog wrote:IMO a cleaner would normally notice a fridge full of meat and vegetables standing open in a flat she is cleaning after the owner/tenant had left apartment 5J.

Does the fridge have a large separate freezer compartment big enough to hide a small body.
Correct me if I'm wrong but 5J is a private apartment so it was the reason why the PJ could not gain access to it at first, which gave enough time for the rotting meat and vegetables to really stink to cover the possibility of the fridge having malfunctioned making this cover up necessary.
IMO perhaps M's body was placed there on a previous holiday, as there was no opportunity to deal with it at the time, necessitating another visit to the resort in the immediate future. Therefore no DNA of M. /no hairs/no hairbrush/toothbrush/suitable photos etc etc. in apartment 5a.
JM did day 'he was not there to enjoy himself.'

Bumping this post in light of the recent revelations about the hire car.

by **tigger** 04.03.14 20:00

listener wrote:
Hobs wrote:What interests me is the fact the mccanns used a towel to provide the dogs with a scent. A towel which could be tainted with scent from the twins and perhaps even kate and gerry especially since they claim there was only 1 toothbrush.

Why not give the dogs the obvious items to scent and thus trace Maddie.

I am talking about the clothing she was wearing that day, perhaps other days if no laundry had been done.

Her clothes would be reeking with her scent especially her underwear.

Why not use what was known to have been worn by her that day and was thus fresh and failry uncontaminated by someone else?

Why use something that no one knows had been in contact with Maddie?

Could it have been the parents where laying a false scent trail for the dogs to follow?

A live trail that may or may not have been Maddie rather than a trail that we know was Maddie.

Could it be that following the trail of Maddie may have led to a place they didn't want known?
Why would the Handler not ask for an unwashed garment, rather than the towel? Unless told only Madeleine had used that towel (unlike the shared toothbrush)?
A shared toothbrush - All three! Sounds absolute nonsense to me

Edit- I have no experience of caring for more than 1 toddler at a time, so stand to be corrected - Anyone?

Processos Volume V

Pages 1335 – 1337

Witness Statement

Date: 2007-05-16

Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão

Occupation: GNR Officer

He has been a GNR officer since 1988. He holds the post of soldier and currently works in the Portimao Territorial Group, working within the forensics service.

On 4th May he was called at about 01h15 when he was asleep at home, requesting him to appear at the Lagos GNR post as a small girl had disappeared. After arriving at the GNR post with his colleagues Morais and two dogs (Numi and Kit), German Shepherd dogs, which made up the search team, they immediately left for P da L. They arrived at about 02h30.

When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCanns' apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the McCann couple. They just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.

by canada12 04.03.14 20:59

tigger wrote:

Processos Volume V

Pages 1335 – 1337

Witness Statement

Date: 2007-05-16

Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão

Occupation: GNR Officer

He has been a GNR officer since 1988. He holds the post of soldier and currently works in the Portimao Territorial Group, working within the forensics service.

On 4th May he was called at about 01h15 when he was asleep at home, requesting him to appear at the Lagos GNR post as a small girl had disappeared. After arriving at the GNR post with his colleagues Morais and two dogs (Numi and Kit), German Shepherd dogs, which made up the search team, they immediately left for P da L. They arrived at about 02h30.

When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCanns' apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the McCann couple. They just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.

Yes but the only proof they had, that the blanket was on Madeleine's bed, was the word of Kate and Gerry. The blanket could just as easily have come from someone else. Another child. An adult.

A thought - has this already been raised as a question? Smithman might have been Gerry carrying another child to lay a scent down for the sniffer dogs?

by **tigger** 04.03.14 22:55

canada12 wrote:
tigger wrote:

Processos Volume V

Pages 1335 – 1337

Witness Statement

Date: 2007-05-16

Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão

Occupation: GNR Officer

He has been a GNR officer since 1988. He holds the post of soldier and currently works in the Portimao Territorial Group, working within the forensics service.

On 4th May he was called at about 01h15 when he was asleep at home, requesting him to appear at the Lagos GNR post as a small girl had disappeared. After arriving at the GNR post with his colleagues Morais and two dogs (Numi and Kit), German Shepherd dogs, which made up the search team, they immediately left for P da L. They arrived at about 02h30.

When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCanns' apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the McCann couple. They just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.

Yes but the only proof they had, that the blanket was on Madeleine's bed, was the word of Kate and Gerry. The blanket could just as easily have come from someone else. Another child. An adult.

A thought - has this already been raised as a question? Smithman might have been Gerry carrying another child to lay a scent down for the sniffer dogs?

That's what I think. If you look at the Kate and dogs topic, how early he wanted dogs, it's my belief that was part of his cunning plan. winkwink

by Doug D 05.03.14 9:38

Not convinced that carrying someone through the streets would leave a scent for dogs to follow. When you see hunt people laying a trail for the hounds they actually scent the trail along the ground.
Personally I prefer textusa's theory of creating the abductor scenario by deliberately being seen carrying a child through the streets, when it would have been so easy to avoid people.
The original textusa 'Smith sighting' post was back in 2010, but there is a more recent one, (end of last year'ish?) which for some reason I can't find at the moment (has it been pulled?), where she walks the route and shows all the escape options, discusses why the 'abductor' walked and crossed over the road when he did etc etc.
I don't like adding more layers, but having got the 'abductor' sighting out of the way, the child then needed to be brought back to the OC without more sightings. Following textusa's ducking & diving possibilities, this was probably manageable, but there was also a buggy floating around allegedly trying to get a youngster to sleep in between having a pee at the Tapas bar. Just a thought.

by **tigger** 05.03.14 9:53

Doug D wrote:Not convinced that carrying someone through the streets would leave a scent for dogs to follow. When you see hunt people laying a trail for the hounds they actually scent the trail along the ground.
Personally I prefer textusa's theory of creating the abductor scenario by deliberately being seen carrying a child through the streets, when it would have been so easy to avoid people.
The original textusa 'Smith sighting' post was back in 2010, but there is a more recent one, (end of last year'ish?) which for some reason I can't find at the moment (has it been pulled?), where she walks the route and shows all the escape options, discusses why the 'abductor' walked and crossed over the road when he did etc etc.
I don't like adding more layers, but having got the 'abductor' sighting out of the way, the child then needed to be brought back to the OC without more sightings. Following textusa's ducking & diving possibilities, this was probably manageable, but there was also a buggy floating around allegedly trying to get a youngster to sleep in between having a pee at the Tapas bar. Just a thought.

No, I did have the idea of a trail left, as well as being seen by an independent witness or two.
You're right, it wouldn't work otherwise. I just feel it fit the psychology. Could be anything, a type a perfume on the shoes, as long as the same scent is sprayed on the item alllegedly used by the target.
Two things support this, the choice of item given was not at all the one asked for.
One:I.e. that pink dress and broderie anglaise pants should have been at hand, as would sandals and trainers.
Two: the pink blanket disappeared at some stage after the GNR had returned it to Kate and before the sniffer dogs from Lisbon arrived. Those GNR were only given a towel, which their statement records 'was said to have been used' by M.

by sami 05.03.14 10:40

Tigger wrote:
That's what I think. If you look at the Kate and dogs topic, how early he wanted dogs, it's my belief that was part of his cunning plan.

Was the scent supposed to stop at the car park, therefore leading to the assumption car park = car, scent stopped, car driven off, across the border, we know the rest.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 05.03.14 10:53

sami wrote:
Tigger wrote:
That's what I think. If you look at the Kate and dogs topic, how early he wanted dogs, it's my belief that was part of his cunning plan.

Was the scent supposed to stop at the car park, therefore leading to the assumption car park = car, scent stopped, car driven off, across the border, we know the rest.

If you're going to plant a scent trail, doesn't this make far more sense than wandering around PdL? Scent goes to car park, trail is dead. Takes a very short time to plant, compared to the 20 minutes or so that you'd need to walk around PdL. And carrying a child at chest height is surely not going to leave a very good scent trail. What would make more sense is to walk a child instead.

And the sniffer dogs followed a trail into the nearby car park, they did not go in the direction of the 'Smithman' sighting.

I think it quite possible that a scent trail was planted leading to the car park, probably with the scent of a child who was not Madeleine, and that scent was on the blanket. I'd guess it took a couple of minutes, and that they backtracked their steps back to 5A.

by canada12 05.03.14 11:05

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

And the sniffer dogs followed a trail into the nearby car park, they did not go in the direction of the 'Smithman' sighting.

I think it quite possible that a scent trail was planted leading to the car park, probably with the scent of a child who was not Madeleine, and that scent was on the blanket.

Is it confirmed that the sniffer dogs followed a trail into the nearby car park?

If so, then that sort of puts an end to the speculation about Tannerman and even Smithman, doesn't it? IF the scent was planted, and IF the dogs followed it to a car park, then that should be the end of the speculation about Madeleine being carried off by an abductor on foot. Shouldn't it...?

IF Gerry intended to indicate the abductor left by car, then of course he would deny seeing Tannerman or Jane. And he'd play down Smithman.

Interesting.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 05.03.14 11:18

canada12 wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

And the sniffer dogs followed a trail into the nearby car park, they did not go in the direction of the 'Smithman' sighting.

I think it quite possible that a scent trail was planted leading to the car park, probably with the scent of a child who was not Madeleine, and that scent was on the blanket.

Is it confirmed that the sniffer dogs followed a trail into the nearby car park?

If so, then that sort of puts an end to the speculation about Tannerman and even Smithman, doesn't it? IF the scent was planted, and IF the dogs followed it to a car park, then that should be the end of the speculation about Madeleine being carried off by an abductor on foot. Shouldn't it...?

IF Gerry intended to indicate the abductor left by car, then of course he would deny seeing Tannerman or Jane. And he'd play down Smithman.

Interesting.

I'm no criminal mastermind, all I try to do is try to think like they may have done that night. The thing I would be most concerned about is sniffer dogs. There might have been one trail - a genuine trail - perhaps going off in the direction of Smithman. You need to prevent sniffer dogs from following that trail at all costs. So you plant a nice, short trail to the car park - you only need to have an adult walk a child for a few yards - but to be honest, you don't even need a child to do it. Nobody would consider it unusual. Then when the police arrive, I would be paranoid about the sniffer dogs, and that perhaps my fake trail wasn't good enough and might fade away. I'd get the sniffer dogs in as soon as possible while that trail was fresh.

The sniffer dog stuff convinces me of one thing - that there was another trail that Gerry did not want the sniffer dogs following. Hence the use of the blanket, and the strange trail that ends in the nearby car-park. I believe that it had one purpose - to distract from a genuine trail.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 05.03.14 11:39

Dogs, more dogs, fridges and apartments..... - Page 2 Maddietrail

The route GNR sniffer dogs tracked Madeleine's scent on 08 May 2007

This aerial photograph shows the trail that two police sniffer dogs took as they tracked Madeleine's scent on 08 May 2007, at 11:45pm.

Two trained dogs were taken to the family's holiday apartment and followed a trail some 100 yards to a nearby car park - where British holiday-maker Derek Flack told police he had seen a man staring at the McCanns' flat.

The dogs lost the trail in the car park, and their Portuguese handlers said they could have been distracted by the odour of nearby bin bags left out in the heat.

Kate McCann had given the dog team a towel she had used to dry Madeleine after a bath, and they took her scent from that.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id94.html

by whatliesbehindthesofa 05.03.14 12:21

I've looked through the PJ timeline for information about the sniffer dogs, and have found some unrelated points quite interesting:

'The deponent remained in the living room for a while, with the GNR officers, Gerry and the other group members that were there in a frenzy, going in and out and speaking on their mobile phones. She noticed that none of the group members, including the child's mother and father, were busy looking for her. The mother was sitting on the master bedroom's bed, the father accompanied S.B. and the GNR officers and the other group members walked in and out and spoke on the phone, apparently concerned about informing the press about the event.

She thought that the child's mother was downbeat with the situation, the father showed his concern and also asked both for the press to be alerted and for dogs to be brought in for the search. Concerning the others, she can only recall that Fiona and her husband, Payne, were hysterical about the situation.'

If all this had been pre-planned, Kate didn't seem to be participating at all.

'The mother was sitting on the master bedroom's bed...'

'...the child's mother was downbeat with the situation...'

And we are given a glimpse at who appeared to be the most stressed about the situation:

Fiona and her husband, Payne, were hysterical about the situation.'

Where was Matt Oldfield hanging about?

At about 23.30 a white fair haired man aged about 30, one of the friends of the McCann group was seen by V. K. and her family when he asked them if they had seen Madeleine. They were near to the chapel.'

Answer - MO was hanging about near the chapel.

Another bit about Kate:

Between 00.00 and 00.30, the police arrived, entered by the main door and went to the kitchen with Gerry. Hotel manager E. L. K. went to the bedroom where Kate and Mrs Payne were. Kate was still upset, crying and calling Madeleine's name, shouting "where is she?" She also banged on the headboard.'

Hmm, where was she indeed?

And again:

At that moment Kate appeared to lose control, crying and constantly asking "where is she?" whilst banging on the bed.

Gerry remained calm throughout.'

More Kate stuff:

The OC services manager introduced him to the missing girl's parents, who looked quite tired and anguished, particularly the mother who appeared more upset and was therefore less receptive to conversation, which led the witness to converse only with the girl's father.'

And:

'As much the father as the girl's mother looked quite worried with the situation and he can even confirm that the mother was very agitated and out of control, crying a lot and shouting in an uncontrolled manner, saying in English "They have taken her".'

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm

by worriedmum 05.03.14 12:31

Why didn't they give Cuddlecat to the dogs to scent?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 05.03.14 12:33

worriedmum wrote:Why didn't they give Cuddlecat to the dogs to scent?

Because they didn't want the dogs to follow Madeleine's trail, they wanted them to follow the false trail to the car park.

by Guest 05.03.14 12:34

.......or the poolside photo outfit that she was wearing (COUGH) that day?

by Doug D 05.03.14 12:49

For those who believe in Smithman, I found the Textusa blog I was referring to:

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/intentional-not-debatable-fact.html

which walks you through alternative routes ‘the abductor’ could have taken assuming he did/did not want to be seen.

As for the dogs, what possible trail could they hope to follow, be it to the car park or to the beach, from a girl carried through the streets 4 feet up in the air?
I know the dogs are good, but that good?

I would have thought the only way for them to find a scent trail was if the person walked (can’t have happened unless willingly, but how can dogs distinguish between a walk on the previous Saturday say?) or a deliberate trail was left, dragging an old M. smelling towel or clothes along the ground.

Anyway, having bathed all three kids, as well as herself (twice) & Gerry would you have a clue as to which towel M. had been dried with? Especially by a mother who shares toothbrushes!
(Towels come from the McCann files link given by Whatliesbehind (11.39) above, but no quote source is given in the files.)

You would give the dog handlers the clothes she had been wearing that day, which is what the story graduates to at the time of the bewk.

P. 85 ‘I fetched the pink princess blanket she took to bed with her every night, which they took, and some of her clothes, which they didn’t’.

Even this doesn’t make sense. Giving the dogs something to go after, you would give them something she had been wearing, not something she may or may not have touched. Why cuddle the blanket when she had CC at her beck & call and it was so warm she didn't need the covers on?

Is there any evidence of this in photos of the PJ dogs anywhere? Was there a sighting or mention of the blanket after the bedroom scene, but before it vanished forever?

Just more McCrap I imagine.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 05.03.14 12:54

I have problems with Textusa, mostly this attitude:

'This post has the objective of proving that the Smith Sighting was intentional and that fact is not debatable.'

Despite this claim it does no such thing, and I will continue to debate it thank you very much Textusa.

by sami 05.03.14 13:18

worriedmum wrote:Why didn't they give Cuddlecat to the dogs to scent?

Because it would have to be surgically removed from Kate. She would not let CC out of her sight, too important to the marketing campaign.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 05.03.14 13:21

sami wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Why didn't they give Cuddlecat to the dogs to scent?

Because it would have to be surgically removed from Kate. She would not let CC out of her sight, too important to the marketing campaign.

Except when it needed to go into the washing machine ;-)

by **tigger** 05.03.14 14:04

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Why didn't they give Cuddlecat to the dogs to scent?

Because they didn't want the dogs to follow Madeleine's trail, they wanted them to follow the false trail to the car park.

Or because cuddlecat had never been anywhere near Maddie and had only just started his starring role.
With possible the merest scent of Eau de Kate on it.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 05.03.14 14:07

tigger wrote:
Or because cuddlecat had never been anywhere near Maddie and had only just started his starring role.
With possible the merest scent of Eau de Kate on it.

Does Kate smell of cadaverine?

by **tigger** 05.03.14 14:19

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
tigger wrote:
Or because cuddlecat had never been anywhere near Maddie and had only just started his starring role.
With possible the merest scent of Eau de Kate on it.

Does Kate smell of cadaverine?

In parts... Thing with CC is, his presence was immediate proof that she'd been abducted. I think the cadaverine was probably from contamination. If he'd been with Maddie during and just before the accident, he'd have had blood on him as well, which is hard to get out just with washing.
He also looked brand-new, (quite a lot of comments on this from mothers here who know what a new toy looks like after even a short while in the hands of a toddler) his history was contradictory, bought at the airport by her godfather, or been with her since she was a baby.

Latest topics