Look at the number of children abducted in such circumstances and then tell me they were not, tragically, unlucky.

how many times dos it have to be said, no evidence there was an abduction.

Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘Madeleine’, has comprehensively smeared top dog handler Martin Grime, who took his cadaver dogs out to Praia da Luz.

On pages 249-250 of ‘Madeleine’, for example, she writes:

“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of our apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] 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 particular site.

“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little.
This was not what I would call an exact science.”

Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise here.       

In a second passage, Dr Kate McCann clearly implies that Mr Grime deliberately caused his cadaver dog to alert to their hired Renault Scenic car.

She writes:

    “…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, returned 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 When researching the validity of sniffer dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler, this certainly seemed to be what was happening here…”         

Dr Kate McCann is plainly suggesting, and has done so to hundreds of thousands of readers of her book, that Mr Grime is incompetent. Not only is this suggestion libellous, it is patently ludicrous. One must ask: would a person such as Mr Grime, whose professional livelihood depended on the 100% reliability of his dogs, proceed to suggest the past presence of a corpse at locations in the McCanns’ apartment and in their hired car if Madeleine, as her parents were adamant, was still be alive somewhere?

She might have been found alive the next day and, if she had, Martin Grime’s professional credibility and his livelihood would have been ruined forever all due to his conscious/unconscious signals, amazingly, guiding these dogs so he could, for whatever reason, essentially, 'fit up' the McCanns!


Perhaps this is what a previous poster means about Mr Grime being, shall we say, discredited because of the investigation.

Anyone for tennis ?

If were saying the Police presumed someone guilty before they start their enquiries or they feel they must get someone for it
guilty or innocence that would be wrong also

The police must be looking for guilt right from the start in everyone who could have possibly committed the crime.
but should only proceed to the arrest if they believe they found the evidence to prove someone guilty

At the moment the McCanns are INNOCENT as is everybody else involved in this case, because there has been no arrest and conviction

I have not read Amaral's book, but if he is saying or implying the McCanns guilt he is flirting with LIBEL
in fact he has been found guilty of LIBEL...I hope the revenue from sales of his book cover the court costs

I also believe he is an honest man who genuinely believes in the McCanns guilt, but he cannot say this in print

Normally when people write books like this, they wait for everybody involved to be dead.

People are still writing books over 'The Red Barn Murder', everybody's a long time dead in that one

Granicking. What tennis game are you referring to? The lesson that he had BEFORE the kid disappeared?

You've probably read it lots of times, especially on here. But no he wasn't playing tennis the next day. Just another bi of misinformation.
I believe it originates from some old lady who thought she recognized him as a man who was playing tennis the following day. This one didn't even reach the police report...but yet it abounds!
I'm sure there are others on here who can, hopefully, give you the proper details.

Who cares about playing tennis, all that jogging in colour-coordinated outfits, signing up to PR firms.  It's odd behaviour perhaps, but not suspicious.

Suspicious would be deleting texts, voicemails and call histories from their mobile phones for example

Ozymandius 04 Nov 15 18:42 Joined: 01 Jul 11 | Topic/replies: 16,343

I agree entirely with everything Naydam says on this matter.

You can ice the cake...

You are mud slinging Naydam............stick to this case

The McCann's were not battered black and blue over

As crags wrote at 1.04 am the McCann's were tragically, unlucky. Must be a million to one.

Exactly it is highly unlikely that she was abducted by a stranger now look at the chances that she was killed by someone she knew.

personally I think the parents are implicated

more likely to have died in an accident earlier in the evening or the evening before in the flat - may have fallen off sofa and banged head

covered up to hide their negligence - stage a fake abduction

body hidden with help from Robert Murat then moved in rental car and buried somewhere north of the A22 expressway

thats much more likely than an abduction

Any idea what they did with the body in the three weeks before they hired the car?

A Lie detector cannot be used in Law, but you see it can be used to reduce the list of suspects

.....to those who refuse the lie detector

The police can now focus themselves on these people, and find the evidence to convict them
it saves a lot of wasted effort, although a conviction must be supported by the normal rules of evidence

They cannot do a lie-detector test because if the results were wrong for some reason, and they are known to be inaccurate, it could never be wrong in favour of an innocent party.

The lie detector can't prove them innocent...but it sure as hell could 'prove' them guilty!
If they were totally reliable things might be different. But they are not.

Anyone thinking that this was an accident and that the McCanns would try to cover this up and dispose of the body is clearly not playing with a full deck.

Why oh why do I get sucked into dignifying such utter nonsense with a reply?


No more from me!

He must be seething that his book of the truth was banned for being a bit loose on the truth bit!! 

Anyone thinking that this was an accident and that the McCanns would try to cover this up and dispose of the body is clearly not playing with a full deck.

This is always what it comes down to with the Mccann defenders . No attempt to explain any of the holes in their version or the evidence implicating them , just 'they didn't do it because they wouldn't have'

As to having half an hour to hide the body etc , well that is what they say .There is nothing to back this up from independent witnesses .If they are guilty they are hardly gonna present a scenario where they had all day to cover it up.

That Crimewatch reconstruction that showed Madelaine at breakfast on the day that she was abducted asking Kate were her parents were the night before as she woke up crying. Kate and Gerry then went out later that night leaving the children again.

There is no evidence that an abduction took place which means the abductor got the correct room which had patio doors left open, he made no noise, he left no dna, he took the the child that was more likely to scream and did this within the 30 mins that the children were checked.

The above may have happened but it is more likely that something is being covered up by the McCann party. Those who think an abductor took her then please tell me the evidence.

The McCann's ideas of child care is like putting a Fox in charge of the chickens xmoneyx