Disclaimer: The following is speculation only. The public are not privy to all details in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
There is much that is open to public view, but in criminal investigations ongoing, police always withold important facts from the public in order to
screen suspects and eliminate the innocent.
Similarly, decisions taken behind closed doors by political figures or decisions assumed to have been taken, can only be speculated upon.
No imputations of guilt can validly be taken from what follows.
Reiterating, because of uncertainty as to the complete facts of this case, the following is posted here in the spirit of speculative discussion only.
It is not to be taken as an allegation of wrongdoing.
Anyone who has taken more than a casual glance at the case of the missing Madeleine McCann, the little girl who disappeared on the night of May 3,
2007, in Prahia da Luz, Portugal, in the Algarve region, has been exposed to a number of confusing and counter-intuitive circumstantial indicators.
This post is an attempt to do some "vector addition" on these indicators to see if evident indirection leads to evidence of direction.
Let's look at the sniffer dog "testimony":
"Ask the dogs, Sandra." Gerry's well known response to a question about the sniffer dog indications points to the obvious drawback of relying too
heavily on evidence from sniffer dogs.
Sensitive they might be but loquacious they are not.
The cadaver dog, Eddy, indicated the scent of death on articles of clothing belonging to Madeleine and Kate and on a shelf in a closet and behind a
couch in the living/sitting room. He found the scent on the key to their rental vehicle and in a flowerbed at the foot of the stairs leading to the
sliding doors of the apartment. He found it on Madeleine's plush toy, Cuddle Cat.
No scent was found on any bed or on any of Gerry's clothing.
The one indicator that is almost never discussed among the collection is the one in the flowerbed. Occasionally it is mentioned that Madeleine might
have fallen off the landing at the top of the stairs, into the flower bed below, where she died.
But that would mean that she couldn't have died behind the couch, usually seen as the most likely place where her death might be supposed to have
occurred and if she died in the flower bed, surely they wouldn't have taken her inside and stuffed her behind the couch, where the scent was found.
However, her body could have been found behind the couch and later deposited briefly in the flowerbed
, enroute to being concealed in some other
place. The flowerbed indication was characterized as faint, by the dog handler.
If that is what happened, why was the scent also indicated on a shelf in a cupboard in the parent's bedroom? Was Madeleine also hidden there? Was she
in the missing blue kit bag, sitting on that shelf, as people frantically searched the apartment and neighborhood?
One could argue that it might be possible for the police to plant the cadaver scent everywhere it was found, in an effort to frame the McCanns. I'm
not sure if they could have done that, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is true.
Why the flowerbed? Why plant scent there and why was the indication faint? It seems a whimsical choice for a frame-up. Would a cop framing them be
smart enough to realize someone carrying Madeleine's body out of 5A, might put it down in the flowerbed, briefly while they check to see that the
coast was clear for a brisk walk down the allyway just over the wall?
Maybe. The unlikliest people can be much smarter than we credit.
If a frame-up is in fact what happened, it was done very carefully, with a whole scenario and sequence of movements in mind. The discovery of the
body behind the couch, the concealment of the body in the cupboard, the brief deposit of the body in the flowerbed, prior to transport elsewhere.
To plant evidence that paints a detailed, complex picture like that would require high intelligence. Personally, I doubt that a policeman that
intelligent, would go to those lengths in a case like this. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.
This move to frame them would have been a reaction to the peculiar behavior of the McCanns following the abduction, the statements made by Kate McCann
about the bedroom window and shutter being broken and on the McCann's refusal to follow police advice against advertising Madeleine's distinctive eye,
the mark of the coloboma. These behaviors might well signal guilt to the police, well before the appearance of the sniffer dogs.
It could, as well, have been a reaction to British diplomatic interference in the case and British press criticism of the Policia Judiciaria. This is
not nice but it is comprehensible on an emotional level.
It still seems an incredible stretch for all of the above to be ingredients of a frame-up. Wouldn't a policeman trying to frame the couple leave the
scent on something of Gerry's? Maybe not.
Maybe this hypothetical and diabolical
frame-up artist stacked the evidence against one person to try to split the couple, to encourage one to
testify against the other.
One particular fact emerges clearly and unequivocally from the sniffer dog indications, though.
The dogs are not dumb. Not one of their indications points away from the McCanns. There is complete consistency in what they find. The margin of error
involved with them is zero. They did not alert to anything or any place that is not connected with the McCanns.
Just to elaborate a little on that, one could say that if they had alerted to one of the other cars assembled the day they sniffed at cars, or to one
of the other apartments at the Ocean Club or to some random individual on the street, who could be proven to have had nothing to do with Madeleine's
one could admit a shadow of a doubt that Madeleine had died in apartment 5A.
One could say, "Well see, these dogs are not always right, and more importantly, they are going astray in this particular case."
But no, while it is true that the dogs may not always
be right, in this case their consistency on multiple alerts argues against error. It
argues against any element of chance figuring at all in their indications.
I really don't believe there is an argument against this.
One of three things happened in this case:
1. Madeleine died in the apartment or near it (and was carried into the apartment) and then removed and hidden by her parents.
2. Madeleine died in the apartment and was removed by an unknown criminal.
3. Madeleine was abducted, alive, by a criminal but the scent of death was planted in the apartment by the police because they were convinced that the
parents were culpable in the case.
Taking these options in reverse order:
The third option
can be eliminated, in my opinion, because the scent of death was found on the "Cuddle Cat" toy when the villa, rented by the
McCanns after they moved out of Ocean Club 5A
, was searched by the sniffer dogs.
In other words, the Cuddle Cat was never out of the McCann's custody
. It appears from the videos of sniffer dog, Eddy, working, that the police
had custody of some of the McCann's clothing, but not the Cuddle Cat
. Hence, it appears there was no opportunity by the police to contaminate
Kate has said that she had contact with dead bodies in the course of her work in the period before the trip to the Algarve and could have transmitted
the scent to Cuddle Cat herself in a way that had nothing to do with Madeleine. But surely, if that were the case, the scent should be on any number
of other items in Kate's possession and not only on the small number of articles of clothing where it was found. Surely it would be on things
belonging to Gerry.
The few instances of the death scent indicated by the dogs argues against contamination from Kate's medical practice. There should be more of them if
that were the route through which the scent got to the McCann's things.
On the other hand, the instance of the scent on Cuddle Cat argues against contamination by the police, since they didn't have access to Cuddle Cat.
(The notion that Martin Grime, the dog handler, might be involved in a frame up is way too far fetched in this case, although, to be fair, there is
a well known case in the US of a corrupt sniffer dog handler.)
The logic of these considerations, argues against contamination by the police as a reason for the instances of detection of the scent of death in this
The second option
, Madeleine's death in the apartment and removal by an unknown criminal is a reasonable possibility.
Perhaps a kidnapper was unable to get her out of the apartment without waking her up. Perhaps a chase ensued. Perhaps Madeleine was killed as a result
of rough treatment in that process, or some accident. Perhaps the kidnapper did not realize that she was dead, in his haste, and simply scooped up the
inert body and took it away with him.
This sequence of events harmonizes well with the reported sitings of a person or persons carrying a child who appeared to be asleep.
This scenario is completely believable, except for the distribution of the scent of death on Kate's clothing and in the cupboard in the parent's
bedroom. It is difficult to see how the scent of Madeleine's dead body could get to those things and that place in such a scenario.
This is particularly true of the scent in the cupboard. Surely a kidnapper would not lug the victim's body around with him as he rummaged through
articles of clothing and looked in one cupboard
On those grounds, I would eliminate option two.
The first option
is a touchy subject. Many of the great and good and wealthy have lent support to the notion that option one is not what
happened. The British government and the British press, by and large seem to be of the view that option one could not be what happened.
Against that we have the famous quotation spoken by Sherlock Holmes:
...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Crime is a terrible thing, particularly for it's victims and it's victims' relatives and their children and society as a whole. Even criminals are
victims of their own crimes. Criminals relatives and children
are also victims.
Taking the long view, it can be argued that some crimes are not worth solving. It can be argued, but is the argument a just and wise one?
Suppose a criminal were let off, by the authorities, because they believed the greater good would be served by moving on, and not inquiring too deeply
into a situation where more harm might be done by the truth than would be done by ignoring the truth, since there was little likelihood of a repeat of
Would this be the wisest course of action for the authorities?
Suppose, out of vanity and a desire to raise himself above any appearance of stain relative to the crime in question, the criminal, then undertook to
raise funds among the public to carry on in pursuit of a fictitious perpetrator
of the crime that he himself had comitted.
Suppose, because of an outpuring of public sympathy, a huge amount of money were raised and spent in rediculous ways that attracted even more
criminals to profit on what would be a wild goose chase. Would that be in the public good?
What could the authorities who willingly turned a blind eye to the truth do about such a fraud?
Is this a theme we see over and over in this thick witted world in which we live? Public officials handcuffed by their own stupidity, unable to expose
the perps because in doing so, they expose themselves.
Is this what happened in the case of 9/11? Is it what happened in the case of the famous American political assassinations of the 1960's.
In law, a person who helps a perpetrator of a crime to escape due process under the law, can be charged as an accessory after the fact.
Such a person, if he were also the holder of great judicial or political authority would have abundant reason to make every effort to prevent justice
from being done in such a case.
The proliferation of mischief of all sorts in a society, stemming from circumstances like this argues strongly that prosecution under the law take
place. There is ample time to extend mercy and allow for special circumstances after adjudication of the original offense
edit on 9-11-2010 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)