Sunday, 22 May 2011

Kate McCann: I always wanted to write down the truth, really, for my three children.


Kate McCann: I always wanted to write down the truth, really, for my three children.

So, you thought it was important that your three children knew that you "couldn't make love to Gerry"? And that they would appreciate being able to read about your very vivid imaginings about what a paedophile might be doing to Madeleine? If Madeleine were to turn up at some time in the future, I'm not sure that she would appreciate being reminded, if she had been abducted by a paedophile and somehow had managed to live and escape.

Do your children really need to read what you have written on page 129 of your book?

"I asked Gerry apprehensively if he'd had any really horrible thoughts or visions of Madeleine. He nodded. Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her perfect little genitals torn apart"

That sounds almost twee. And it reads like you're talking about a child's expensive material possession being damaged. I can imagine adoring relatives, leaning over a crib and making gushing remarks about a baby's "perfect little fingers and toes," but who would talk about the baby's "perfect little genitals."? If an examining physician were to lean over and coo about the child's "perfect little genitals," wouldn't alarm bells be raised? Is this how you imagine, Kate McCann, that the readers will be persuaded that you are a loving mother? You have visions of "perfect little genitals."? Well, I may be just an internet nutter, but I'm appalled beyond words to describe my disgust.

Kate McCann: I guess the reason, well the trigger reason, why I actually...why it became a book and why it was published, was because we have to fund the search for Madeleine and the fund was running low. So, we had to raise money.

You also need to raise a bob or two for the costs awarded against you for the legal action in trying to get Gonçalo Amaral's book banned, costs to Carter-Ruck and costs for the upcoming libel action against Gonçalo Amaral.

Kate McCann: If I'm honest (And why wouldn't you be? And what would you be saying if you weren't being honest?) I suppose I was hoping that we'd have more public support, really, but because we were at such a low ebb, and things couldn't have got any worse than they were in September 2007, I suppose I'd hoped that someone would come forward and publicly show support or basically , you know, say what they felt about certain bits of information that were appearing in the media.

I really can't make very much of that vague waffle. The question to which Kate McCann may have been responding may have been edited, but if she is still talking about why she wrote and published the book, which I assume she is, then this is just a load of waffle.

"More public support."? In terms of money? As soon as the fund was set up, the money rolled in: pensioners sent donations from their meager income and schoolchildren made and sold cakes. Or is Kate McCann referring to more recent times when the fund was running low and Gerry sent out begging letters to people who had previously given very generous support, people like JK Rowling? Did the rich sponsors not come up with the goods, then?

What does how things were in 2007 have to do with the fund running low, publishing the book and being at a low ebb at an unspecified time? Kate just knew she had to get in a mention of how bad they felt when they were made arguidos by those nasty sardine-munching Portuguese cops?

And when was it she had hoped this person would have come forward and "publicly shown support." September 2007? Around the time she decided to write and publish the book, and it didn't happen? As a response to Gerry's begging letters to rich supporters who would publicly have thrown a great wad of cash their way and no one did, so she had to get the book written?

Kate McCann sounds like she desperately needs to cover a few important details, but they're all kind of thrown into a cognitive blender and have come out as information mousse. She thinks that no one came out and said what they felt about "certain bits of information that were appearing in the media."? What bits of information? When? When they were made arguidos? Who would she have wanted to make this public display of support? A politician? A journalist? Does Kate McCann have a specific "someone," in mind here and she's telling that "someone," how let down she felt?

I just don't know what Kate McCann is waffling on about there.

Gerry McCann: We have proceedings underway against Gonçalo Amaral. That's all we really want to say about it.

Oh dear! Does that mean they're going ahead with the libel action? I wonder what their legal representative, Isabel Duarte, is advising them on this. Since three judges, sitting at the Lisbon Court of Appeal decided that "The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," (Guardian 19/10/2010) I would have thought the McCanns would have reconsidered pursuing this action. Do they seriously think that a lower court will ignore the deliberations of the Court of Appeal and decide that Amaral's book does breach their rights?

Ah well! I guess the McCanns will just keep on doing what they've been doing: think that if they repeat something often enough, shout as loudly as they can, like small, spoilt childen, they'll get their own way. One of these days, somebody's gonna shut them up. And please God make it soon! I still think a reconstruction would put paid to their fairy stories! Maybe the Scotland Yard team and the Portuguese police will jointly request it. They really should. And like lots of other internet nutters, I am eternally optimistic that justice will be done one of these days for Madeleine.

Somebody do something to shut up that pair of lying eejits!

Wednesday, 18 May 2011

The McCann case - What I'd like to see in a reconstruction - Part 1


Well, what would I like to see in a reconstruction of the events of May 3rd 2007, when Madeleine McCann was reported missing, having mysteriously disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz?

First of all, the child that Jane Tanner reported that she saw being carried by the alleged abductor. The child chosen to take the part would have to be the same height as Madeleine was said to have been at the time: 90cms. I can't quite believe that she was that small, but that's the height that was given out in a description by her parents. So, that's the height the child should be.

Then there's those pyjamas! I doubt that Marks and Spencer has the identical pyjamas still on sale, but the basic style is popular and so should be easy to come across. Kate can let the police know the size, I am sure, although the size Madeleine was wearing is probably a matter of record.

So, the child should be the same height and wearing pyjamas just like these ones.


And she should be carried just as described by Jane Tanner, as seen in the image below, which Jane Tanner verified as a good likeness of the alleged abductor and correct for the way the child was being carried.


But, can someone tell me, just a simple explanation will do, how the pyjamas being held up by Kate and Gerry McCann could end up looking like those in the image verified as accurate by Jane Tanner?


How could baggy, cropped leg pyjamas end up tightly around the ankles? Those pyjamas would ride up to the knees on a child being carried like that.

This is one of the very first inconsistencies that could be shown up in a reconstruction of the events. If Jane Tanner did see a man carrying a child in that manner, wearing pyjamas as shown in the image she accepts as an accurate representation, then it wasn't Madeleine McCann whom she saw.

There could be several explanations for the inconsistency:

1) Jane Tanner didn't see a man carrying a child.

2) She did see a child being carried, but it wasn't Madeleine and under the sodium street lights, she was confused about colour and the pyjamas weren't pink.

3) It was Madeleine and Kate and Gerry lied about what she had been wearing that night.

However, as Jane Tanner slip-slapped her way up the alleyway, in her flip-flops, and apparently passed very close to Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins, neither of the two men saw her.

So, were any of those three lying? Rather seems like it. Who and why? They can't all be telling the truth? And Marks and Spencer's pyjamas are like dogs in a way: they don't lie!

I think there has to be a reconstruction of the events so that this and other inconsistencies can be addressed. This would be the best possible start, in my opinion, to finding out what happened to Madeleine.

Kate and Gerry McCann: "Absolutely no evidence.."?


Video #2 in the "Discrepancies," series by HiDeHo

For more information:

Kate McCann - further re-writing of history!

Kate McCann: "The curtains went whoosh!"

Re-writing the story of "
How I knew that Madeleine had been taken."

Kate McCann:

I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it.

I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding.(See image below) and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and Cuddle Cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.


Above: photo of Madeleine's bed from the police files. It was perfectly flat, as though it hadn't been slept in. What was there that Kate McCann could have mistaken for the bedding or Madeleine? Perhaps if the bedding had been bunched up, she could have wondered what the bulge was, but there's no bulge.

Referring to her relating of the story, Kate McCann opened the door and as she went to close it, it slammed. She opened it again to have a look at the children, (She went back in? She hadn't mentioned actually going in!) something like a gust of wind blew the curtains open. Something like a gust of wind? What could be like a gust of wind, apart from a gust of wind?

Anyway, no mention of going anywhere else before the curtains went
whoosh! She opened the door immediately for the second time and the curtains went whoosh.

And here we have Kate McCann talking to Piers Morgan with a greatly embellished account of how she knew!

PM: What was the exact moment...I'll ask you Kate...when you realised that Madeleine was gone?

KMcC: Well, I went back to do a check at ten o'clock, emm...and I went through the patio doors at the back..emm...and I listened for a minute in the living room and it was all quiet. And I just noticed that the...the door to the children's bedroom was quite far open and we always leave it so that it's slightly ajar, just to let a little bit of light in. And..emm...I thought to myself, did Matt leave the door open at half nine...errr... because Matt checked on them at half nine...emm..and I thought that must be what happened. I went to close over the children's door and just as I was about to close it, there was kind of slammed, like a gust of wind had shut it. And then I thought, did I leave the patio doors open? (So, she didn't think I'll just take a look at the children at this point?) So I just checked (Didn't mention that before) and they were closed. And then I went back just to open the door a little bit (Not to look at the children?) and just as I was doing that, (So, incidental to closing the door?) I just...emm...I just glanced at Madeleine's bed (Not..oh there's the twins in their cot? And you didn't hallucinate a flat bed into bunched up bedding or a child?) which was by the wall. and it was really dark and I couldn't make her out. And I just kept looking for what felt like minutes, thinking, you know, where is she?

At this point in the original telling, when the door was opened for a second time, the curtains went whoosh!

And it seems daft now because normally you'd think I'd put the light on. It's that inbuilt thing of don't wake the kids up...emm...and then I looked and realised she wasn't there and I thought, so has she gone through into our bedroom?

No, this was where Kate McCann told us previously that she knew Madeleine had been taken because the curtains went whoosh and Madeleine's bed was empty, apart from her pink blanket and Cuddle Cat. know...that would explain why the door was open as well. So, I just quickly looked in our room and she wasn't there and that's probably the first time I..that panic started to build. So, obviously (Obviously? Not from the previous telling!) I ran back into her room and...emm..just as I did that, the curtains, which were closed, just kind of blew open and as they did that, I noticed that the shutter was up and the window was open.

PM: And what did you think in that moment?

KMcC: I thought someone's taken her.

PM: You went down to tell Gerry straight away?

KMcC: Yeh, I...I basically whizzed round the apartment. About 15 seconds. I don't know why. In my head I was just thinking if someone's been in and she's cowering somewhere, I guess, which is why I did it. And then I just flew out through the back, down the stairs to the restaurant.

I don't know how Kate McCann can do this. Does she think she's addressing an audience who are two sandwiches short of a picnic? Does she think none of us remember what she said before and can compare? Surely someone could have/should have suggested that she just take a glance at her old interviews and make sure she remembered the story as she had told it in the past? Kate McCann seems to think it's OK to re-write history. The question is why? Why would she think it's OK? Because there isn't a journalist out there who will call attention to the glaring contradictions? Yes, that's exactly what I think. Not one of them has the cojones to say, "Hang on a minute.."

What happened to investigative journalism? Is there no one at all who will ask the obvious questions? Shame on the lot of them and especially those who have filled their pages over the past few days with the utter garbage that Kate McCann has written.

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

Kate McCann: "We haven't put too much emphasis on her eye."


Madeleine's very distinctive eye pattern is discussed on this video where Kate and Gerry McCann are interviewed by Piers Morgan.

Watch from 0.35 - 1.30


PM: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

KMcC: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye because I think you have to be very close to her to see it, but her eyes are slightly different colours and one of them has a brown fleck in it...emm...but you do notice particularly on photographs, but...

OK then, who produced these posters?



Look 1



Why is Kate McCann wearing a badge that says, "Look into my eyes."?

Kate badge

And what does the text on the poster Gerry is holding say? Can it be, "Look into my eyes."?

Gerry eyes

But they haven't put too much emphasis on her eye!

Oh dear, Kate McCann seems to have forgotten something. Again! She doesn't appear to remember not just all of the above, but what Gerry said in an interview for Vanity Fair magazine, that was published in January 2008. I guess that is rather a long time ago! Kate McCann says she never reads what bloggers and other people on the internet have to say, but she might at least read the official interviews!

Vanity Fair January 10th 2008
(See page 5)

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”
It was a what, Gerry? A good marketing ploy! But you haven't put too much emphasis on her eye!

Another piece of the history of this case being re-written after the all those posters, the Bryan Adams song, "Everything I do," as the theme to videos and Gerry admitting that it was a good marketing ploy!

How does that cliché go? Ah yes! You couldn't make it up! Well, it appears that Kate and Gerry McCann can!

Monday, 16 May 2011

Madeleine McCann - Former police commander calls for a reconstruction.


Above left: the image of the 'abductor, which Jane Tanner stated resembled the man she had seen carrying a child whom she was sure was Madeleine.

Above right: the man seen on a beach by a witness who reported that the man had been behaving strangely on the beach in Praia da Luz.

In the Sunday Express, dated May 15th 2011, Dai Davies, former Yard Commander, suggested that a reconstruction of the events surrounding Madeleine McCann's disappearance could be vital in encouraging new witnesses to come forward. There was a request for a reconstruction in 2008. What happened?

When top Portuguese detective Paulo Rebelo took over the case he was frustrated at not being able to stage a reconstruction as he believed it could provide a breakthrough.

However, at that time there were strains in the relationship with the McCanns, the so-called Tapas Seven and Portuguese police and there was suspicion about the motives of such an exercise.

So, what happened to the original call for a reconstruction from Paulo Rebelo? For information purposes on just what did happen to that suggestion, I copy here a report at the time which appeared in, written by Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis. (10/08/08)

McCann Case: the failed reconstruction.

In April 2008, Paulo Rebelo gave a detailed response to the McCanns' friends about their arguments and doubts on the subject of the reconstruction of the events of May3rd. He stated that one of the conditions put forward by the group, that of first of all withdrawing Kate and Gerry's arguidos status - was impossible to accomplish, because only the Prosecutor held the legal power to do it, not the PJ.

On the subject of the reconstruction, the main problem for the McCanns' group of friends was clear: if the PJ believed their statements, then the reconstruction wasn't necessary, or the PJ were trying to obtain something strange with this activity.

They wanted to know what the PJ's true intentions were. After several exchanges of emails, going first through Stuart Prior, the Tapas 7 group were not convinced of the usefulness of such a reconstruction.

In the replies that followed, Kate and Gerry's friends placed as a condition, not only the lifting of the McCann couple's arguido status, but also the announcement of a press release by the PJ dispelling the lies published by the Portuguese media, emphasising that there was no suspicion about the seven friends.

As it was impossible to accept or accomplish these conditions, Paulo Rebelo, in an email addressed to Stuart Prior on April 29th, requested that a final decision was taken. Jane and Russel O'Brien were the first to respond, saying yes, but waiting for further advice from their lawyers. Rachel and Matthew sent a similar response, but stressing that they couldn't be in Portugal between May 15th and May 17th.

Diana, Fiona and David Payne also accepted, while waiting for advice from their lawyers. After the PJ's detailed explanations, Jeremy Wilkins was willing to participate, on conditon that the other witnesses were also in Portugal.

The criminal court took the decision to set a new date: 29th and 30th of May 2008. Then Gerald McCann requested a change to this new date, because his lawyer had another meeting planned before the Lisbon court, for May 29th. His request was refused because it was impossible to make a further revision of the date, due to the numbers of people involved.

On May 10th, Rachel and Matthew Oldfield sent an email to Stuart Prior, communicating their final decision to him: they would not be in Portugal to participate in the reconstruction. Russel O'Brien, also on May 10th, told the Superintendent that as he had learned that Jeremy Wilkins, the Oldfields and the Payne family had now decided not to go to Portugal, there was now no need for their presence, because the Prosecutor had said that the reconstruction could not take place unless all the witnesses were present.

On May 23rd, all seven of the McCanns' friends sent a formal reply to the Prosecutor's request for a reconstruction, saying that they would not be attending, after advice from their lawyers.

The reconstruction was therefore cancelled by the Judge for the Court of Criminal Investigation, on May 26th 2008.

Duarte Levy & Paulo Reis


(To be continued)

Saturday, 14 May 2011

Friday, 13 May 2011

Page 129 of Kate McCann's book.

(Click on image to enlarge)

I have no words to express the shock and disgust I feel that Kate McCann should have written the book for her children and include something like that.

Wednesday, 11 May 2011

Kate McCann, I've got news for you: The Langoliers are not coming!


"The Langoliers," was a short story by Stephen King in which the eponymous "Langoliers," gobbled up the past. They were like huge, bouncing balloons that opened up and made holes in the landscape that had been the past.

I sometimes wonder if you think those Langoliers exist, Kate McCann, because you seem to forget that the past not only exists in people's memories, but it also nowadays exists on this wonderful internet. It was rather different in the days before such technology not only made instant communication from far-flung parts of the world possible, but kept a record of it too. YouTube, Kate, YouTube. Newspaper archives. Portuguese people to translate police files and upload them. These all hold records of what you have said in the past, in the four years since your daughter disappeared. And the Langoliers have not gobbled it all up.

Oh how dreadful when people throw one's words back in one's face! And oh how utterly awful when those words cannot be taken back or denied.

You want a "for instance"? Well, for instance, how about the following from an extract in The Sun from your about to be published book? It's that much-reported incident where Madeleine apparently asked you why you hadn't come when she was crying.

At breakfast time on the Thursday, Madeleine had a question for us. "Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?"
Now, because of this wonderful internet, I can call up all sorts of things, which have not been gobbled up by those very unhelpful Langoliers (where are they when you need them?)

Well, would you have a look at this? From the police files. Here is what Kate and Gerry McCann said on May 4th, 2007, the day after Madeleine disappeared.

Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 4th of May 2007, at 11.15 a.m.

On the morning of May 3rd, MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into her bedroom when the twins were crying. The deponent had heard nothing and therefore had not gone into the room, yet he thought his daughter’s comment was strange, even because it was the first time that she made it.

Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, on the 4th of May 2007, at 2.20 p.m.

She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday the 3rd, Madeleine asked the witness why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The witness states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom, nevertheless she found her daughter’s comment strange because it was the first time she had made it.

(Note: No time specified!)

And here is what Gerry said on May 10th 2007. The details had changed!

Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.

On the day that MADELEINE disappeared, Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time, between 07H30 and 08H00. When they were having breakfast, MADELEINE addressed her mother and asked her "why didn't you come last night when SEAN and I were crying?" That he thought this comment very strange given that MADELEINE had never spoken like this and, the night before, they had maintained the same system of checking on the children, not having detected anything abnormal. When he questioned her about the comment, she left without any explanation.

(Note: There is now a specified time, but the bedroom isn't mentioned!)

Again from today's copy of The Sun:

"We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they'd gone to bed?
...Gerry and I were disconcerted. Could Madeleine and Sean have woken up while we were at dinner?"

Now, on May 4th 2007, both Gerry and Kate reported that Madeleine had asked why they hadn't come to her bedroom. Now, in this book, Kate is telling us that they asked Madeleine if the crying had been when she and Sean were having a bath. Not what was said on May 4th 2007!

I'll return to addressing you directly again, Mrs Kate. The Langoliers are not coming. All your statements are recorded and archived on this amazing World Wide Web and can be called up in an instant. I really think you should have done a bit more research for this book, particularly with regard to your own well-documented utterances. This is the kind of thing a friend should have told you and I believe your friend Fiona Payne helped jog your memory about events. Pity her memory is as bad as yours or maybe she would have pointed out the glaring errors of recall.

Some people are actually calling these errors lies, Mrs Kate, but I think you got a bit mixed up. I reckon you thought this book was going into the 'Fiction,' section and you totally forgot that the Langoliers were not coming.

In the words of a lovely older lady I know, who comes from 'oop north, "It's all me eye and Peggy Martin."

That book of yours, Mrs Kate, from what I read the other day to the lovely lady who is almost blind, "It's all me eye and Peggy Martin."

And for those who are not from 'oop north and don't know anyone from way up there, a quick translation.

It's pure fantasy!

Monday, 9 May 2011

Kate McCann: "Did they expect me to confess to a crime they had made up?"

..................... ....................

Now, there's a great deal I could say about Kate McCann's book, which will be released on May 12th, extracts of which are being published in The Sun, but today's offering is as good a place to start as any.

Kate McCann describes in her book how the police, via their lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, had offered a deal.

If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I'd receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I'd be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.

So, that, according to Kate McCann, was the deal: confess and we'll go easy on you. And what was her response?

Pardon? I really wasn't sure I could possibly have heard him correctly. My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name?

And even more importantly, did they really expect me to confess to a crime they had made up, to falsely claim to the whole world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her?

Well, first of all the ignominy of having such a charge against her name. Not, "I would never have harmed my daughter and I'm not going to confess to having done so. I'm going to look for her with every last breath in my body." Her good name!

And what might the result be? That the whole world would stop looking for Madeleine. Note: not that Kate McCann would therefore not be able to look for her child, but everyone else might stop. Somebody else can do it! The world's press can keep Madeleine's name in the public's attention. Why keep a dog and bark yourself?

There's going to be a riot when news of all this reaches people back in the UK.

Why should there be a riot? They're not Posh and Becks! No, no rioting in the streets! Just pictures of Kate and Gerry hot-footing it out of Portugal with uncommon haste!

There's no way our government will stand for this. (Four months down the line and still so naive!)
Now, why should the UK government stand for or not stand for the work of the police of another sovereign nation? Why should the government intercede on behalf of the McCanns?

Then we come to dem doggies!

I knew exactly where this line of questioning was going and as much as it riled me, I refused to rise to it. Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. "These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate," he said, waving an A4 document in front of me.

"Two hundred cases and they've never failed. We have gone to the best laboratory in the world using low-copy DNA techniques."

His emphasis suggested this was the gold standard. I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them than I did.
So, what did it matter that the dogs had never been used in Portugal? And at that point how did Kate McCann know that? He knew little more about them than she did? I very much doubt that, but we must read on to find out exactly how little Kate McCann knew about those dogs, exactly how little she managed to find out even given that there is so much information readily available on the internet.

The dogs in apartment 5A, according to Kate McCann:

Each dog ran around the apartment, jumping over beds, into the wardrobe, generally having a good sniff.

At one point, the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this site.

The dogs ultimately "alerted". I felt myself relax a little. This was not what I'd call an exact science. In footage of the apartment next door to ours, one of the dogs began to root in the corner of a room near a piece of furniture.

And the vehicle which was hired some time after Madeleine disappeared?

The film show continued. Now we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic.

It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an "unblinded" study, one that is susceptible to bias.

One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.

The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed; returning to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking.
Neither of those descriptions from Kate McCann is accurate, as can be seen from actual footage of the dogs with the vehicle and in the apartment.

In the underground car park.

As can be seen very clearly, Martin Grime drew Eddie's attention to each of the vehicles in turn, bringing him back to sniff. It wasn't just to the McCann's vehicle.

Eddie and Keela in apartment 5A. Video from Duarte Levy.*

Note that Martin Grime allows Eddie to run around the apartment and then directs him to specific areas, none of which Eddie pays particular attention to. When Eddie 'alerts,' in the wardrobe at 4.00, Martin Brime is actually standing back, not giving any direction.

After being directed very clearly to very specific areas, when Eddie jumps onto the sofa, he nearly disappears behind it: from 6.00. So, the sofa was not particularly chosen, not indicated for attention any more than all the other areas that Grime drew Eddie's attention to.

When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. We would later learn that in his written report, PC Grime had emphasised that such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence.
'The conscious or unconscious signals of the handler.' In over 200 successful cases? Well, either Martin Grime had information about those cases that meant there was no need for the dogs: just let Martin Grime have a good sniff! He's cheaper to hire than the dogs anyway! Or Grime is psychic!

Now this part of Kate McCann's writing about the dogs is very significant, as far as I am concerned.

As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the "odour of death", putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than 30 days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.
Now, I ask myself, why should any timescale be important? Kate McCann is wrong, by the way, as she would have found out by doing some very easy searching on Google. I'll post links at the end to good information about the length of time in which a cadaver dog can still detect the odour, but I'll leave that for now and just focus on this 30 days issue. (See Addendum)

Why is it important? Why would it matter at all if Kate McCann knew that while she and her husband had the vehicle no dead body, or anything that had come into contact with a dead body, had been transported in the vehicle?

Has Kate McCann inadvertently given something away here? Does it matter because it was more than 30 days since a dead body had been in the vehicle? Did it matter because after 30 days 'There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find.'? Because it was, in fact, more than 30 days since there had been 'decaying body parts,' in the vehicle, so therefore there were none and the dogs were wrong?


Kate: They've got us bang to rights, Gerry. Those dogs are spot on every time.

Gerry: No, we're in the clear. The odour only lasts for 30 days. Look at the calender!

Why the need to find out what the time period was in which a cadaver dog could still detect the odour? It was a fairly new vehicle and no one had died in it or been transported dead in it previously. So, why 30 days?

As I said, why does the timescale matter if Kate McCann knew, that as far as she and her husband were concerned, there had been no dead body in the vehicle while it was in their possession?

Can we assume a 'therefore,' between, 'As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the "odour of death", putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than 30 days.' and 'There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.'

Something to ponder? Aye!



Residual scent in buildings:

The case of Jean Zapata.

Jean disappeared in 1976. Friends never believed that she had abandoned her young daughter. In 2005, the case was re-opened and cadaver dogs were brought in.

Madison Police Officer Carren Corcoran has trained and handled cadaver dogs for the last ten years.

It's hard to imagine that a dog can detect something from 30 years in a basement. How is that possible?" Schlesinger asks.
"I think that an entire body decomposing, possibly early on and in a space like the crawlspace, which was really [a] primo environment to contain scent. There's no wind. There's no rain. The temperature stays about the same all the time," Corcoran explains.

On Jan. 6, 2005, Statz, Corcoran and Cleo the cadaver dog went to work in the crawlspace. "Right away she started really working and working, and working the area of both outside the crawlspace, and into the crawlspace. And then she eventually provided a formal indication, which is a bark for Cleo," Corcoran remembers.

Then, a second dog reacted the same way. Police started excavating the crawlspace.

"We found some hairs. We collected bug carcasses and a Burger King cup. We found things. But we did not find anything that we could tie to Jeanette Zapata," Statz says.

Jean's husband, Eugene confessed to her killing.

CBS News