Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

Tony Bennett wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Assume for a moment that there are going to be some "digs".
Assume that those digs are going to be anywhere within the precincts of PdL.
This must provide the clearest indication so far that Grange do NOT accept that Madeleine could possibly have been abducted between 9pm and 10pm 3/5/7
It provides the clearest indication to TM (and the T7 and C-R ) that they do not accept a word of what they said.
And that they believe that whoever was responsible for the disposal had ample opportunity and time to do so.

(and to spell it out for the pro-child-neglecters who stalk the site - THERE WAS NO TIME TO DIG A GRAVE in the McCanns' time line.  You cannot move half a tonne of soil, let alone bedrock, between the time of Gerry's last sighting and the balloon going up. Quite apart from waiting for the Cadaverine to develop to the point where it can be detected )

Now assume that the "digs" are going to take place some little way outside PdL.
The same argument surely applies.
By the following morning there was at least one helicopter fluttering around, the hills were alive with the sound of PJ, we even have film of them patrolling the immediately surrounding hills on horses.

But there is, surely, a wholly alternative scenario opened up by Grange as a result of CrimeWatch last October:

1. Madeleine was abducted between 9.15pm and 10.00pm ('the window of opportunity is wider than before') 

2. Abductor seen by Smith family around 10pm

3. Abductor has killed Madeleine and has stored her body safely somewhere

4. Maybe re-buried it somewhere later.


@ PeterMac

In theoretcial support of your scenario, there is Redwood's statement that 'Madeleine may not have been alive when she was taken from the apartment' (or words to that effect).

However, does not this leave Redwood with my scenario above, PLUS

5. Abductor killed Madeleine in the apartment and THEN carried her body across PdL, where he was seen by the Smiths?   

This scenario can then conveniently account for body fluids and cadaver scent in G5A.

russiandoll wrote:re Tony's point 5 :  The timeline of checks does not allow for the development of cadaverine if I understand the process correctly. 45 minutes max taking the checks into account ?

russiandoll wrote:re Tony's point 5 :  The timeline of checks does not allow for the development of cadaverine if I understand the process correctly. 45 minutes max taking the checks into account ?

Tony Bennett wrote:

canada12 wrote:And always bearing in mind that there has to be a reasonable expectation of having enough proof to bring the case to court. If there isn't enough evidence to result in a reasonable expectation of a conviction, then there isn't likely to be a court case. This is what the digging is about, and the investigating. It's about finding evidence that will stand up in court.

But which could only ever be a Portuguese court

russiandoll wrote:re Tony's point 5 :  The timeline of checks does not allow for the development of cadaverine if I understand the process correctly. 45 minutes max taking the checks into account ?

ultimaThule wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

canada12 wrote:And always bearing in mind that there has to be a reasonable expectation of having enough proof to bring the case to court. If there isn't enough evidence to result in a reasonable expectation of a conviction, then there isn't likely to be a court case. This is what the digging is about, and the investigating. It's about finding evidence that will stand up in court.

But which could only ever be a Portuguese court

As you have previously posted on the subject, you are aware that the UK can exercise jurisdiction with regard to a number of serious crimes committed abroad by its citizens, TB.  Should any British nationals be brought to account for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, they may find themselves being tried in the UK courts..

Bishop Brennan wrote:

russiandoll wrote:re Tony's point 5 :  The timeline of checks does not allow for the development of cadaverine if I understand the process correctly. 45 minutes max taking the checks into account ?

That seems to be generally accepted.  Also it ignores the traces in the Scenic as mentioned above.   HOWEVER - the great British public remembers little if anything about Eddie and Keela.  The dogs have been airbrushed entirely out of the new SY narrative.  They played no part in the Crimewatch recreation; they have not been mentioned even once in any press article or TV report.  It is as though they never existed.  For Whitewash fans, this is actually very typical of a whitewash technique: don't every try to discredit unhelpful elements, simply ignore them entirely and pretend they were never there.

As such, the "exit plan" from SY does NOT require to take into account anything found by Eddie or Keela.  They don't exist. They never existed.   As such, Tony is correct - the SY story (sex offender kills her in 5A and then buries her) is entirely credible and fits all the evidence.

(What is less credible is PM's point about WHEN the burial took place - if it was in or near PDL - but that is a detail that few red-top readers will even understand.

canada12 wrote:Doesn't the fact that the McCanns asked for the search to be put on hold until after the birthday party indicate two things?
One, they anticipated something bad to be discovered and
Two, they were in no hurry to find out what that bad thing might be?

ChippyM wrote:

canada12 wrote:Doesn't the fact that the McCanns asked for the search to be put on hold until after the birthday party indicate two things?
One, they anticipated something bad to be discovered and
Two, they were in no hurry to find out what that bad thing might be?

No I don't think it indicates anything like that, the papers ran a story that they asked SY, doesn't mean they actually did. That story was to control people's perceptions IMO. It was to send out a message that a) the McCann's are still tortured and upset by everything (lets feel sorry for them) and b) that they are in a position (as the victims of this terrible ordeal) to ask SY to delay operations. I don't think they are at all.

    When Gerry said 'find the body and prove we killed her', I'm convinced he said that because he was sure the body would not easily be found. I think they are nervous because something may be revealed through these operations but probably not a body itself.

stillsloppingout wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

canada12 wrote:Doesn't the fact that the McCanns asked for the search to be put on hold until after the birthday party indicate two things?
One, they anticipated something bad to be discovered and
Two, they were in no hurry to find out what that bad thing might be?

No I don't think it indicates anything like that, the papers ran a story that they asked SY, doesn't mean they actually did. That story was to control people's perceptions IMO. It was to send out a message that a) the McCann's are still tortured and upset by everything (lets feel sorry for them) and b) that they are in a position (as the victims of this terrible ordeal) to ask SY to delay operations. I don't think they are at all.

    When Gerry said 'find the body and prove we killed her', I'm convinced he said that because he was sure the body would not easily be found. I think they are nervous because something may be revealed through these operations but probably not a body itself.

Artefacts . The toothbrush  clothing underwear etc would have been spirited away sharpish . They were hardly going to dispose of a body with all her items with it . A lone item would arouse no suspicion but several items together Bingo  It could be something as small as lone toothbrush that has been unearthed by say a dog, that has located a spot of interest .

Just think they could be undone by a toothbrush !!  .

Tony Bennett wrote:
As for the Scenic, surely that's very easy.

Redwood: "The McCanns didn't hire it until 25 May. Therefore Eddie and Keela, if they really DID alert to cadaverine and body fluids, then that must have occurred when someone else drove this car BEFORE 25 May'.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Redwood was specifically instructed by those much higher to look at every scenario apart from the parents or their friends being involved. So he basically can come up with any solution apart from the one with the most circumstantial evidence.

notlongnow wrote:
Surely anyone in the uk who has been convicted with the help of sniffer dogs may have a good case to claim wrongful conviction if the dogs are ignored?

And in future cases,any decent barrister need only to cite to this case for there unreliability

Bishop Brennan wrote:

notlongnow wrote:
Surely anyone in the uk who has been convicted with the help of sniffer dogs may have a good case to claim wrongful conviction if the dogs are ignored?

And in future cases,any decent barrister need only to cite to this case for there unreliability

I'm afraid not.  It's not that SY are saying that the dogs are wrong or unreliable.  They are simply pretending that they don't exist.  It's exactly the same as pretending that there is zero suspicion over the McCann parents.  

However, someone else convicted or accused of a crime against their child cannot say "oh but SY thought Kate and Gerry were innocent, so I must be too". And in just the same way, a person convicted arrested partly because of dogs cannot claim "oh but they didn't use them in PDL, you can't use them on me".     It just doesn't work that way.  

Bishop Brennan wrote:

notlongnow wrote:
Surely anyone in the uk who has been convicted with the help of sniffer dogs may have a good case to claim wrongful conviction if the dogs are ignored?

And in future cases,any decent barrister need only to cite to this case for there unreliability

I'm afraid not.  It's not that SY are saying that the dogs are wrong or unreliable.  They are simply pretending that they don't exist.  It's exactly the same as pretending that there is zero suspicion over the McCann parents.  

However, someone else convicted or accused of a crime against their child cannot say "oh but SY thought Kate and Gerry were innocent, so I must be too". And in just the same way, a person convicted arrested partly because of dogs cannot claim "oh but they didn't use them in PDL, you can't use them on me".     It just doesn't work that way.  

ChippyM wrote:

canada12 wrote:Doesn't the fact that the McCanns asked for the search to be put on hold until after the birthday party indicate two things?
One, they anticipated something bad to be discovered and
Two, they were in no hurry to find out what that bad thing might be?

No I don't think it indicates anything like that, the papers ran a story that they asked SY, doesn't mean they actually did. That story was to control people's perceptions IMO. It was to send out a message that a) the McCann's are still tortured and upset by everything (lets feel sorry for them) and b) that they are in a position (as the victims of this terrible ordeal) to ask SY to delay operations. I don't think they are at all.

    When Gerry said 'find the body and prove we killed her', I'm convinced he said that because he was sure the body would not easily be found. I think they are nervous because something may be revealed through these operations but probably not a body itself.

The Rooster wrote:...they aren't stupid by any means. 

Tangled Web wrote:
If SY are pretending to ignore the dogs then how will they explain why they think "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" (or words to that effect from AR) and what was the indication that she may be dead, resulting in the digs for a body?

Cristobell wrote:

..... wrote:Imo, Gerry is reckless - a huge risk taker.  Asking for a review was a huge risk, for example, and it has almost certainly not given Gerry and Kate the result they were looking for.  The Fund has been dormant these past 3 years, the fundraising has stopped, other than the paypal donation buttons which remain on the OFM, but I suspect they get little use.  

We have seen many examples of Gerry enjoying 'the game' - in a couple of interviews he was barely able to suppress his laughter.  I think his 'Find the body' challenge is another example of his cocky 'you can't catch me' attitude.  The McCanns had a couple of very good years where they appeared untouchable and the search experts brought into PDL, had failed.  There is really no point in digging unless the investigators have specific information, and in 2007, they didn't.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:
If SY are pretending to ignore the dogs then how will they explain why they think "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" (or words to that effect from AR) and what was the indication that she may be dead, resulting in the digs for a body?

They've never been challenged on why they made that (very under-reported) quote. But I can imagine AR deadpanning that "it is just one possibility - that she may or may not have left the apartment alive. We are ruling nothing out and nothing in".  You know, the usual cr@p that he spouts.  

As for the digs - again, nobody has asked the question, and again you can imagine the stone-wall reply:  "This is a standard part of our investigation so that we can rule out certain possibilities that were not fully checked at the time of the original enquiry".  

No need to mention the dogs.  And that's why they haven't.  

The only tiny, teeny glimmer of hope that flickers away is the knowledge that the INSTANT that they mention Eddie and Keela, then the entire world knows that the McCanns are guilty.  As such, if there is even one lone copper checking that angle, then nothing would be said until they knew for sure that they had something to back up the dogs.  Is the dig part of that?  I'd love to believe it, but for now I can't.  

Nothing would make me happier if I were wrong, and I'd gladly bake a giant Humble Pie to share around the forum!  

jeanmonroe wrote:Bishop Brennan

"Nothing would make me happier if I were wrong, and I'd gladly bake a giant Humble Pie to share around the forum!"
-------------------------------------

FGS don't invite Auntie Phil............................i'm 'starving'!    

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:
If SY are pretending to ignore the dogs then how will they explain why they think "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" (or words to that effect from AR) and what was the indication that she may be dead, resulting in the digs for a body?

They've never been challenged on why they made that (very under-reported) quote. But I can imagine AR deadpanning that "it is just one possibility - that she may or may not have left the apartment alive. We are ruling nothing out and nothing in".  You know, the usual cr@p that he spouts.  

As for the digs - again, nobody has asked the question, and again you can imagine the stone-wall reply:  "This is a standard part of our investigation so that we can rule out certain possibilities that were not fully checked at the time of the original enquiry".  

No need to mention the dogs.  And that's why they haven't.  

The only tiny, teeny glimmer of hope that flickers away is the knowledge that the INSTANT that they mention Eddie and Keela, then the entire world knows that the McCanns are guilty.  As such, if there is even one lone copper checking that angle, then nothing would be said until they knew for sure that they had something to back up the dogs.  Is the dig part of that?  I'd love to believe it, but for now I can't.  

Nothing would make me happier if I were wrong, and I'd gladly bake a giant Humble Pie to share around the forum!  

ChippyM wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

..... wrote:Imo, Gerry is reckless - a huge risk taker.  Asking for a review was a huge risk, for example, and it has almost certainly not given Gerry and Kate the result they were looking for.  The Fund has been dormant these past 3 years, the fundraising has stopped, other than the paypal donation buttons which remain on the OFM, but I suspect they get little use.  

We have seen many examples of Gerry enjoying 'the game' - in a couple of interviews he was barely able to suppress his laughter.  I think his 'Find the body' challenge is another example of his cocky 'you can't catch me' attitude.  The McCanns had a couple of very good years where they appeared untouchable and the search experts brought into PDL, had failed.  There is really no point in digging unless the investigators have specific information, and in 2007, they didn't.

You could be right there Cristobell. It would fit with a narcissist's way of thinking, ie. I'm so much cleverer than you all and you can't possibly catch me. So I imagine he may have done things very thoroughly and cleverly but it's the cocksure, narcissistic attitude that could be his downfall and he may have been just gone a little bit too far due to his enjoyment of playing this game.  The digging has got to be based on something I agree, or why would the PJ agree to it?

Tangled Web wrote:
........ I completely understand the scepticism in light of the level of corruption we have seen and I'm not 100% on the 'non-whitewash' side myself. However, if this IS supposed to be a whitewash, I think that SY are making a total hash of it!!! All they seem to be doing is turning the public against the McCann's (people resent the amount of resources, money etc. being spent on this one child), showing E-fits that look like GM and the countless, ridiculous news articles (allowing comments) are directing the general public to the PJ files!!!

I suppose we just have to sit tight but I'm starting to get a numb bottom