Will SY find McCann child's remains in Portugal?

Another article from Chelsea Hoffman at Allvoices, in which she states, "...... Kate and Gerry McCann notoriously played games in the case by bringing doubt to the validity of cadaver dog evidence.......".

She also refers to "..their mindless supporters in the U.K.....".

Well worth reading, in my opinion.

To answer the question - I hope they do.
No body = no post mortem.
And the converse is also true.

Madeleine is definately in or around Portugal otherwise Kate McCann wouldn't make her visits there on the pretence off visiting friends.


Will she ever be found.....one day.

Thanks to Annabel for posting the link. (As you must know by now, I am not a tech person.)

A bit of a rubbish article by Chelsea Hoffman considering she calls herself a crime analyst and profiler. 
It looks only half done with no analysis or profiling, which is surprising considering she wishes to sell a course that she runs on crime studies. 

So.. (to purport a theory)


What are the likely scenarios?

We know the blue sports bag went missing. 
We know where the dogs signalled. Including the scenic, rented after the disappearance. 
We know the smiths sighting has been minimised. 

Yet we also query the night of the death occurring. 
As how long did the planning take? 
'why didn't you come for us mummy"

In scenario 1) the accident occurred the night of the abduction.

If so what time?
I'm not sure I believe the Mccanns time frames.
Yet, the smith sighting seeing Gerry running with an unresponsive child in his arms is significant. 
We know the body then had to have been taken to a freezer as the dogs later signalled in the scenic which meant the body had been transferred again. 

In Scenario 2 the death occurred prior to the abduction night.
In which case what happened to the body then?
Did they turn the air con to max cold and put the body in the wardrobe whilst they thought of a plan? (hence the dog signal in the wardrobe?) or even whilst they cleaned up? What night was it that Kate cleaned everything in the apartment? And washed the 'tea stain' ? I forget?
Who cleans a holiday appartment like that anyway considering its part of a complex with cleaners??

There were also suggestions the body could have ended up in the pet cemetery, buried along the road somewhere (evidenced by phone pings) or even the church (what was the theory behind that?).
It may also have ended up in the sea, which might explain kates suicidal thoughts in her book re drowning, but that's not secure really is it?

What are the likely scenarios in all your minds and how do you draw them together with the evidence we know?

I know there are those who do not necessarily appreciate Chelsea Hoffman's articles but after years of reading the U.K. press regurgitating the McCanns' abduction myth, I find it encouraging when I read Chelsea Hoffman's views on this case. She is an American who has been suspicious of the McCanns from day one, and for all the right reasons in my opinion, and is entitled to call them the way she sees them.

interested wrote:I know there are those who  do not necessarily appreciate Chelsea Hoffman's articles but after years of reading the U.K. press regurgitating the McCanns' abduction myth, I find it encouraging when I read Chelsea Hoffman's views on this case.  She is an American who has been suspicious of the McCanns from day one, and for all the right reasons in my opinion, and is entitled to call them the way she sees them.

She barely wrote an article.
Is she really a journalist or a glorified blogger?
The people of this forum create content in more depth on a daily basis and are aligned similarly.
Yet she wishes to sell a 'crime studies' course on her work.
She can not teach that which she does not know.

The work of Dr Martin Roberts, Hobnob or Pat Brown is of the standard I expect for someone calling themselves,  'analyst' or 'profiler'. Chelsea makes the claims herself yet this is disparate with the content of her articles. This one was particularly short. It might as well have been a tweet!

The format is not complicated.

Current event in the context of the file history and previous behaviour = speculation of new line of enquiry/what might happen next.

Loopdaloop wrote:A bit of a rubbish article by Chelsea Hoffman considering she calls herself a crime analyst and profiler. 
It looks only half done with no analysis or profiling, which is surprising considering she wishes to sell a course that she runs on crime studies. 

So.. (to purport a theory)


What are the likely scenarios?

We know the blue sports bag went missing. 
We know where the dogs signalled. Including the scenic, rented after the disappearance. 
We know the smiths sighting has been minimised. 

Yet we also query the night of the death occurring. 
As how long did the planning take? 
'why didn't you come for us mummy"

In scenario 1) the accident occurred the night of the abduction.

If so what time?
I'm not sure I believe the Mccanns time frames.
Yet, the smith sighting seeing Gerry running with an unresponsive child in his arms is significant. 
We know the body then had to have been taken to a freezer as the dogs later signalled in the scenic which meant the body had been transferred again. 

In Scenario 2 the death occurred prior to the abduction night.
In which case what happened to the body then?
Did they turn the air con to max cold and put the body in the wardrobe whilst they thought of a plan? (hence the dog signal in the wardrobe?) or even whilst they cleaned up? What night was it that Kate cleaned everything in the apartment? And washed the 'tea stain' ? I forget?
Who cleans a holiday appartment like that anyway considering its part of a complex with cleaners??

There were also suggestions the body could have ended up in the pet cemetery, buried along the road somewhere (evidenced by phone pings) or even the church (what was the theory behind that?).
It may also have ended up in the sea, which might explain kates suicidal thoughts in her book re drowning, but that's not secure really is it?

What are the likely scenarios in all your minds and how do you draw them together with the evidence we know?

Kate also washed that toy.

Considering how much planning was needed to make sure everyone had the right story, I think scenario 2 is more probable. Plus it would explain why the children were left again when it would have been obvious to the McCanns that doing so could lead to more trouble with the club (which I think they would not have wanted).

I believe Maddie's still in Portugal or Spain, but not in a lawless lair. More like the Odiel mud flats.
Strangely enough, this was also the location where "The Man Who Never Was" turned up in 1943. Operation Mincemeat.

Thank you Loopdaloop for your comments. I will consider myself well and truly put in my place, like a naughty school girl. LOL!!!

i appreciate that different people have different opinions, and really that's all it is. I like Chelsea Hoffman, ok for some she falls short when selling courses, but in other articles imo she asked some questions that we all like answers to. she is one of a very small number that puts herself out there with her articles, so for that and that alone I m happy to read anything she has to write. jimo.

comment


Posted By PaulCost PaulCost | 21 minutes ago
Those reading this article who have little or no knowledge of the Madeleine McCann case may be given the impression that you have some understanding of it. Those reading who know at least a little or more will be fully aware that the content of this article proves you have at best a casual knowledge and at worst are totally lacking in knowledge about the case.

Your opening sentence is simply incorrect. Yes, the search for Madeleine continues but anyone reading the case files which were released in 2008 rather than relying on gaining their knowledge from lurid news articles and even more lurid online blogs and forums would realise that not all the evidence points to the "demise" of Madeleine. Though some, such as yourself, clearly wish to forget the evidence of a number of witnesses who saw a so-far (after six years) unidentified man carrying a child away from the apartment area at the time of the disappearance, that evidence is still in existence and unexplained.

It would seem that you don't realise that the conclusion of the Portuguese, now also reached by Scotland Yard, is that the disappearance of Madeleine may have been the result either of abduction or death. Only a few weeks ago the lead investigator stated clearly that there is nothing to show that Madeleine is dead. By starting your article with such an inaccuracy you are making it difficult to take the remainder seriously.

You go on to claim that SY officials (actually they are very experienced detectives) "are desperately grappling for evidence to compliment (sic) their numerous 'persons of interest'".

Two points arise from this claim. Do you have anything to support your idea that SY 'officials' are desperately doing anything? From what I have read they are simply doing the normal work of detection. And further, why do you believe they wish to compliment (give praise) to anyone in this way? The very idea seems totally weird.

Your second paragraph also begins with a completely inaccurate claim. It was not made apparent from the beginning of the case that "someone died in the McCann's rental apartment". Again, if you actually had bothered to read the case files or even in this instance to read news reports, you would understand that it was three months after the disappearance that this was suggested by the dog alerts.

Your insinuation of game playing by the McCanns in their refusal to believe that the dog alerts were accurate is simply spin. They have denied that the dog alerts have proved the death of their daughter. As there was no forensic back up to the alerts (which the handler stated would be necessary to prove that the cadaver odour was linked specifically to the death of Madeleine) then the McCanns are in fact correct. The reliability of dog alerts is related to the forensic evidence which follow such alerts.

You then go on to state that Kate refused to answer questions without adding the rider that she did so on legal advice, something which any American should understand. And you further twist things by referring to a refusal to take polygraph tests without explaining that the source of the requests for such tests is not the police (neither the Portuguese nor the British authorities have ever suggested such tests should be taken) but internet blogger such as yourself. Nor do you point out that such tests would have no benefit in law in either Portugal or the UK as those jurisdictions do not allow their introduction as evidence.

By filling your article with such inaccuracies and spin and then going on to call the people who defend the McCanns online against such lies and spin as 'mindless' you are setting yourself up as a totally biased person who is herself commenting without understanding the facts and seemingly does not appreciate that others also (especially if they do have the facts) have a right to comment.

You admit in fact that you have no idea what the actual cause of the disappearance might have been by only being able to state that it might have all been a pack of lies from the McCanns. In exactly the same way, and you show nothing to suggest otherwise, it may indeed have all been the complete truth.

As for your final question about whether Scotland Yard detectives can solve the case, then I would reply that I sincerely hope that they can do so because the shambolic initial investigation by the Policia Judiciara clearly failed to bring justice for little Madeleine.

wonder whose pseudonym PaulCost is.

There's a notorious pro called Paul Castello - it's likely to be him, he's more prolific than Pam Gurney at the moment.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:There's a notorious pro called Paul Castello - it's likely to be him, he's more prolific than Pam Gurney at the moment.

Seems like typical pro response: insult and arrogance all the way.

Iris wrote:I believe Maddie's still in Portugal or Spain, but not in a lawless lair.  More like the Odiel mud flats.  
Strangely enough, this was also the location where "The Man Who Never Was" turned up in 1943.  Operation Mincemeat.

Hello Iris. I was so traumatised by that film when I saw it as a child in 1957 that I finally had to put the ghost to rest by visiting his grave in Huelva a few years ago! It was, in truth, a wonderful ruse which helped the allies win the war.

Regarding the response of poster PaulCost, in my opinion, there is not really anything wrong with it although I disagree most of the points this poster has written, especially the dismissing of the dog evidence and the final paragraph. In my opinion, what the McCanns think about the evidence is irrelevant. The important thing is the fact of what it is, the fact that it is evidence, and what it means to police and in a court.

To have impact, these 'pro' posters need to explain far better why we should dismiss such obvious evidence. I think the problem is, it is too obvious, and maybe not being able to explain the evidence to support their theories makes them annoyed.

(EDITED)

What makes posts like the post from PaulCost a lot less useful in the discussion is comments that only follow the media / McCann view without questioning this. I think it is possible for these posters to be pro-McCann theory of abduction but also question some of the things they did.

I personally think writing bad things, not specific things, about the PJ shows both a lack of knowledge about the case and and also that the writer believes everything he / she reads in the media.

I would have had more respect for the post except for this part, which shows the poster as not understanding so much about the case and the PJ#s actions, especially at the start.

You admit in fact that you have no idea what the actual cause of the disappearance might have been by only being able to state that it might have all been a pack of lies from the McCanns. In exactly the same way, and you show nothing to suggest otherwise, it may indeed have all been the complete truth.

As for your final question about whether Scotland Yard detectives can solve the case, then I would reply that I sincerely hope that they can do so because the shambolic initial investigation by the Policia Judiciara clearly failed to bring justice for little Madeleine.

If poster PaulCost reads this forums, here are some issues with these final paragraphs:

1) the right to give an opinion does not depend on knowing the truth (otherwise only two or nine people in this word could speak about it)

2) the McCanns contradictions, starting with the distance from the tapas bar to the apartment do not support 100% truth from the McCanns, and believing that the McCanns did not try to manipulate the media is naive.

3) There is no strong evidence to support the PJ having been shambolic. Blaming the PJ is a simple way of avoiding the bigger issue which is why the actions of the McCanns at the beginning of the investigation make the PJ suspect them? This may have clearly not helped the search, because the focus would have been divided.

Is Paulcost's only evidence that a friend of the only people who have said 'abduction' saw 'something' and this has also changed over time, then he(?) will be able to provide irrefutable proof to us all that an 'abduction' did indeed take place, won't he(?) ?

Would he(?) be willing to state in court, under oath, that an 'abduction by a stranger' actually happened?

I don't think that 'a friend of the only people who have said their child was 'abducted TOLD me' would stand up to any cross examination, do you?

So Paulcost, if you do have 'irrefutable evidence' that an 'abduction' took place i suggest you deliver it to the investigating authorities.

Unless of course...........

Yes, I think they are good questions, jeanmonroe.

About the original post, I remember when the McCanns started jogging. At first I thought it was so they could speak away from the press. But then later it occurred to me that maybe they were passing a place where they wanted to keep a check on.