Maddy McCann

Three main points to consider:

1. In all cases of child death, family members are the "first" and most likely to be involved in that death based on all statistics world wide.


2. The cadaver dogs hit on a dead body in both the room and in the vehicle later rented by the parents and body fluids were recovered that gave a very close match to the child.


3. No reasonable parent would leave small children alone in a room while vactioning in another Country.


The most logical consideration at this point is the parents had something to do with the death and are covering it up. I am not a court of law, I am a human able to make up my own mind based on information that is available and if new information comes along, I will consider that but so far, I am leaning tword the idea that they drugged their children so they could go out and have fun without having to be bothered with caring for them and accidently killed one of them.

 

This or they possibly left the child alone and the child died as a result of some accident, and the parents knew they would be either held accountable by authorities for negligence or be looked down upon by friends, family, or the public for their child dying as a result of them being selfish/irresponsible.

 

I can buy that as well, I am just certain they were involved in some way and will continue to do so until some evidence comes along to show someone else did this.

At the very least they are guilty of child endangerment just for leaving their kids alone like that so I see no reason they are walking around free.

 

Another thing that puzzles me is that I haven't heard of any other abductions. Why would this be an isolated case? If your gonna snatch one kid why stop there? If there's a market for kids then ones never enough.

 

It might be that they never left Maddie alone that night. She may already have been dead by then.

The "we left the kids alone" excuse may just be a lie. It's purpose being to introduce the notion of an abduction to divert attention from themselves.

It's an extreme theory. We just dont know yet what happened.

 

In the UK thousands of kids go missing every year. Mostly run-aways I suppose.

From time to time we get to read about weirdo's like that Austrian guy. He kidnapped a 10 year old. She finally managed to escape 12 years later. We still dont know what was going on, but I imagine she was a sex slave.

Then we have had Fred and Rosemary West who kidnapped and killed perhaps a dozen or more youngsters. And of course there was Myra and Ian Brady. And of course there were those two paedophiles in Belgium who came to light a few years ago. Their victims died of starvation while the perps were under prolonged arrest.

It's not nice to think about but there are probably several kids out there locked up in quiet places

What sickens me is that often these guys have done time for similar offences, and are then released. They then offend again. Like the killer of Sarah Payne. Ian Huntley had also demonstrated an unnatural interest in children, long before he murdered Jessie and Holly.

I dont thnk its appropriate to release such men after jail sentence completion. Offenders of a certain type it should be jailed for life. Not because of what they have done, but for what they would probably do again given the chance.

Punishment without the crime ? Yes, I'd rather have this for certain criminal types, rather than read another horor story like the torture and murder of Sarah Payne

 

I'm just saying is see no trend in this problem in Morocco. I can't find anything on google. But if it was a problem already you would think they would have some leads. This is why I think it was the parents. There's no other crimes similar that I know of. If there was a slave or baby trade going on you would think there would be some talk of such things.

 

So what's so impossible about your standard stranger abduction crime of opportunity scenario? Is it just not as fun to think about as the parents being the killers?


I think the bit about the cadaver dogs is bullsh*t. Seems as though more would have come from that information if the police felt it was strong evidence.

A few issues I have with this investigation;

Maddie McCann: 'No body, no case' - MSNBC TV - MSNBC.com
It gets worse, or worser, if I can use made up words to describe this;

Jhony5 already been done said this stuff 'n junk.

MOAR?

The parents don't fit AT ALL into a psychological profile. They have no motive. The inane and utterly baseless assertion that they drugged Maddy to death so they could go have fun, makes no sense and has no merit. If they wanted to go out that bad, they would have taken advantage of the in-house baby sitting service. What we have here are two parents that were absent minded and complacent enough to leave their kids sleeping for a few hours.

It's that one thing they don't know. That one glimpse of the man that took her, walking away, that went uncaptured. The pedophile that first noticed Maddy in the lobby with her parents. The same pedo that saw her parents without Maddy. Logical deduction and the offer of opportunity was all it took. With the drop of a few lock pins by way a few wires, the predator enters, picks up his sleeping query, and walks away unnoticed.

The local police trample the crime scene, fail to act in a pro-active manner, fail to properly interview people and in an autonomous default move, they accuse the only people they can see. They lie and release trumped up "evidence" to the media and then bring them in for an interrogation, hoping to have them shaken.

 

No, most crimes of harm to children involve a close family member or close friend of the family. In this case, only the parents meet that description due to them being in another country at the time.

Not much more that you can make of it. The cadaver dogs are like a pregnancy test, you are either pregnant or not, in this case, there either was a human corpse in the appartment and vehicle or not, the dogs hit on a dead body, that is all there is to say.

Let's look at that for a second.

They admit they wanted to go out with friends without their children, this is not in dispute. Why did they "not" get the in-house baby sitting service as you say they could have?

Why leave tiny children without any supervision in a strange Country when you can easily use the sitter? This is the biggest flaw with their story, they have no good reason to leave these small children completely alone. Children only need a second to get hurt and die, as doctors they know this but still they felt safe to leave them unattended.

Why did they feel so safe?

Is there a reason they knew that there was no way their tiny children could have gotten into mischief without supervision? Maybe because the chindren were drugged?

Yes, I know there is not facts to prove this but as a parent I cannot accept that any parent would leave their kids unattended in this kind of scenario without some good reason to believe the kids could not get into trouble while out of sight and hearing of the parents in a strange Country.

Why a man, why not a woman?

Why a pedafile, why not a slave trading ring that was looking for children?

The what ifs can go on forever but there is not one shred of evidence showing anyone else was involved in this case.

Again, the most likely suspects for crimes against children are close family and friends, not strangers. By looking at the only people that fit that description in this case (the parents) they had a 90% chance of getting it right.



Having proof they were involved based on what can pass in a court of law is completely different than what we need to know these parents are most likely involved in reality. O.J. Simpson was found innocent of killing his ex-wife and friend but in reality, he did kill them so I could care less what a court says in cases like this.


At the minimum, these parents put their children into harms way to go have fun without their children, that is criminal and a tiny little girl paid the price for their fun.

How can people forget that?

 

I never think it's fun to think about dead children, no matter what or who the cause.

 

Too much entertainment in the news today. People oft times forget that we're talking about a little girl and they delve deep into the soap opera aspects and inherent entertainment value of believing the parents were the killers.

I think everybody knows that. This is not exactly a stunning revelation of forensic demographics.

There is a twist to this statistic, however. Let's say 85% of all murdered children involve a family member. That 85% is, of course, chopped off of a 100% block of solved cases. The twist is where stranger abductions come into play. The highest percentage of unsolved child murders/missing children are perpetrated by strangers, or non-family members.

The police, naturally, want it to be a family member. If this is true, than they have a list to work their way down. Once that list is finished, then they're f*cked.

The longer this case goes unsolved, the more indicative it is of the parents innocence. Given the strict timeline involved, the parents would have to be either very very lucky, or possess a murderous savvy the likes of which Ted Bundy would be jealous.

Are you actually debating this and have no real knowledge other than what you read on the cover of the Enquirer while you wait to check out at the grocery?

Seriously, the "cadaver dogs" bit was a line of sh*t. How can you not see this? This is a Moroccan resort town who's economy relies heavily on tourist dollars. They cannot have people thinking that a child abductor is at play on their field. Sorry to say it, but politics have taken precedent over good police work here.

From the UK media;
Questions over Maddy McCann 'blood traces' - Telegraph

So, as I have been adamantly asserting, the "biological evidence" in the apartment is faulty and most likely just trace evidence that Maddy was there. Which we already know.

Now the bit about the cadaver dogs;

Now if the dogs even did actually hit, which I have my doubts, then there is still a plausible and wholeheartedly logical explanation for this. The dogs smelled death on a woman that works daily with corpses. How quaint!

Thats simple. They obviously didn't regard leaving their kids across the hall with any more worry than they would to do this at home. This is not a monstrous act. It is the act of complacent and irresponsible parents. If they had regarded this as an obstacle (The only reason why they would use strong amounts of sedatives) than why wouldn't they just pick up the phone and call the in-house babysitter? Am I making sense yet?

No. They felt safe due to an irresponsible amount of complacency. The knowledge that their children, any children this age, would be fast asleep and would sleep through a train wreck. I know, thats stupid. But people are stupid more than they are not. Just because you nor I would do this, hardly signifies that no one would do this.

A hair follicle test performed on the other two children, searching for trace amounts of whatever sedatives that these doctors had access too, could have cleared up this baseless theory. To mention such things without proof is akin to injecting theories of alien abduction into the matter.

What? I thought you liked statistical averages? Now you're against such notions?

Because a lone pedophile is an unknowable, unseen entity. The existence of a sex/slave trade in these parts has nary a whisper attached. Such things leave resonant traces. Word spreads and cases support such activity. Nothing to this angle exists. Therefor it is logical to assume that the perpetrator is a pedophillac male, 35 years of age, acting alone.

Again, you like statistical averages. I got plenty to fire back at 'cha.

More paramount is the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to indicate the parents did it. Which is an abominable oversight.

All the police have been able to prove concerning the parents, is that Maddy was at some point in the apartment and around here parents. Both of which we already know.

For Maddy's DNA to get in that car, hired after she went missing, is not even worthy of note. I find my daughters hair entangled in my own, days after dropping her off to her mother.

There is no reason or evidence pointing toward the parents. All we have here is a speculative theory that lacks corroboration on any level.

 

And the most likely percentage of being guilty, don't forget that little tidbit.

And yet you want the parents to be completely ignored as suspects even though they have the highest degree of possible guilt.

Being as they were never solved, how would you know that?

Obviously you are making that up, I can just as easily say that all unsolved abductions and murders of children are done by the parents and what would that mean?

Nothing, just like the crap you just said.

Most crime against children of this sort is done by relatives and close friends, these parents are the only ones that match the statistics, clearly until a good reason comes up to no longer consider them, they should remain as the prime suspects.

How do you know what the police "want" you a mind reader now?

Again, more made up crap to try and support an unlikely scenario of the parents not being involved in some way.

Actually, it is the opposite, the longer it remains unsolved, the greater the chance it was the parents are guilty. A stranger must act quickly, he must take chances and cannot prepare for every possibility so there is almost always a mistake somewhere, as time goes by and everything is more closely looked at, it shows that great care and time went into making that body dissapear, that means only the parents had the ability to put so much detail into the crime.

No, I am very well educated in the situation and have a much greater understanding of investigations then you do being as I have done a few.

Cadavar dogs don't know anything about politics, they only do what they are trained to do. They are trained to detect dead bodies, that is what they did, what people did with that information after the fact has nothing to do with the validity of the hits.

We don;t know that because the details of what was found was not released, but they did say fluids in one report, at least a small about of fluid in the vehicle, that is not easily written off.

The scent could not be transmitted in that way unless she had handled "fresh" dead bodies and never washed her hands before touching the floor of both the room and the vehicle, that is not plausable.

Unless the drug use was the most common way they used, people tend to creat habbits and if they used the drug method at home, they would use it while away from home as well. Clearly they "could" have used the bebysitter if they wanted to, it was their choice, but they refused to get a sitter, very troubling fact to me.

Again, you were not there and cannot read their minds so where we must make an "assumption" we should stay in the most reasonable and common assumptions in cases like these. A reasonable parent would never leave their tiny children unattended without knowing for sure they would not get into mischief. Being as they refused to get a sitter, there must have been another reason they were so sure the kids were not going to get into anything.

It was requested and denied, another thing that draws suspicion.

And is my reason for bring it up.

You clearly feel it reasonable to talk of averages to "assume" a male molester was involved but they account for a very tiny number of attacks on children in the world and is stistically very doubtful in a situation like this.

Only the parents had provable access, a possible good motive, and the knowledge to pull this off in such a seemless and perfect way.

Nope, there is lots of evidence. They were the only ones with access to the children, they had plenty of time and knowledge to pull off this perfect crime, they have very unbelievable stories about why they refused to get a sitter and have everything to lose in life if guilty.

Dead body hits in the appartment and vehicle as well as DNA evidence in that vehicle.

The only evidence in the case directly points at the parents, not one shred of evidence points to anyone else.

So clearly they were the only ones proven to have access.

But she was never in the car, at least not alive anyway.

What are you talking about, all of the evidence directly points at the parents.

There may not be a lot of evidence, but what they have is against the parents. There is not one thing that proves anyone else was involved, that is where the lack of evidence falls to further show the parents are the only ones who could have done it.

So far, but I am hoping new information does come along to prove it otherwise.

You act like people want it to be the parents but most of us dred any story of a parent hurting their child. It pisses us off and makes us wonder how a parent could do something like this. It is much easier to accept actions like this from a stranger, without an emotional bond to the child then a parent who by every right should never be able to do it.


But reality tells us that they are the most likely responsible people, no matter how much we may want it to be otherwise.

 

Any cop will tell you. Stranger abductions are by far the hardest to solve. Logical deduction must mean that the highest percentage of unsolved abduction cases involve a stranger. This is why the highest percentage of solved cases involve family or friends. Because they are on a list. Summarily checked off. Strangers are not going to appear on this list.

Police derive there statistics for stranger abductions through an elementary process known as the process of elimination. If they check off everyone on the list, than it is probable that it was a stranger that was responsible.

If a child is abducted or killed and the case is never solved or a family member or friend is never named as a suspect, then it is logical to presume the abductor was a stranger or slight acquaintance.

No, I don't want them ignored. What I don't want is for a stranger to be ignored. Tunnel-vision investigations are flawed from the start.

Agreed. But this can only be shown in solved cases. Which are relatively easy in comparison to solving cases that involve a stranger.

They only match a generic statistic. They do not match statistically in respect to; They aren't divorced. They aren't criminals. They don't use drugs. They aren't mentally unstable. They aren't suffering from a mental illness/depression. They have no life insurance policies for Maddy. They have no overt motive.

First of all, a stranger abduction is hardily "unlikely". Statistically less then what we see with family members being involved. But hardly an unlikely scenario.

Whomever committed this crime did it on impulse. If the parents planned for this and used malice aforethought to commit this crime against their daughter, it would go against your unfounded scenario that they accidentally over dosed their child on a sedative. Which would require an impulsive cover-up. An impulsive crime will most often have cracks and mistakes. Being that the parents are under a fully focused microscope, any mistake would have manifested itself. So far, notta.

So what was it Mr scenario crafter? An impulsive hasty cover-up due to an overdose? Or a well planned murder with no apparent motivation?

Ya. And did I tell you I am a black belt karate instructor when I'm not f*cking teenage cheerleaders. C'mon man. So far you present yourself as a jack of all trades. I'm not saying you're a liar. I'm saying you are full of sh*t. Wait........ya I'm saying your a liar.

Did these dogs give a press conference that I am not aware of? Because I claim the police are liars. They are known liars. Lying to suspects in a standard method of operation. Even lying to the media is proper when it comes to a murder investigation. Being that you are a seasoned investigator, than you probably already know this.

Thats bullsh*t. Cadaver dogs hit on the odor of rotting human flesh. There is no distinguishing between the freshness of said rotting flesh. As rotting flesh is inherently not fresh.

If they did have any evidence, they would secure an indictment. On top of that, as a few of the links I provided pointed out, this was most likely a pre-interrogation mind f*ck.

Your source for this? Because it is my understanding that they could secure a warrant for the acquisition of DNA for a profile.

I am arguing for a stranger abduction. If I am correct and it was a stranger, than the most likely culprit fits my profile. As this matches the FBI's statistics for stranger abductions and the motive for such being sex, 49% of the time. The rest is comprised of people attempting to keep the child for their own and a mixture of "other". 86% is a male between 20-39, fitting my profile rather well.


Child Abduction, analysis of this crime and major cases - The Crime library

I can get into your house, I guarantee, in less than 3 minutes. Right through your front door. Rudimentary knowledge of how to re-key a lock, how to mark a blank key, how to maneuver the internal tumblers and/or a credit card and I'm in there snatchin your child while you sleep.

If this was indeed the case, then th DA would have sufficient cause to push for an indictment and press charges with a hearty stash of circumstantial evidence.

Lies do not count as evidence on the foot of a faulty investigation. The only evidence they say they have has been ardently disputed by many people that it even exists or that it has any pertinence to indicate a murder took place.

 

It is not logical to "assume" only strangers could make successful crimes like these. It is logical that being as most people who get busted doing these crimes are related to the victims, then that trend should follow into crimes unsolved.

What you are talking about is an assumption, without the case being sloved, we do not know the relationships but we do know with all crimes that the most successful criminals are those that plan more, how has more time to plan something like this other then the close friends/relatives?

My point was that being as most crimes involving children are committed by family and close friends, and the parents are the only ones who fit that description, obviously it is reasonable to focus 90% of the attention to that direction. Time spent looking at lower priority possibilities is warrented, but not a main concern in cases like this where so often strangers have nothing to do with them.

I still do not agree witht he stranger thing, I am sorry but it is hard enough to do a crime like this but the stress and fear involved with someone unfamilure with times, areas, schedules, room layouts, and the unforseen make it very difficult for a complete stranger to pull off something like this without leaving any evidence at all of their being there.

You cannot prove any of that, most studies show that over 80% of women deal with severe depression after pregnancy, humans are a mess and still most of the harm done to children are from those that they trust, I am sorry but that can only be the parents in this case.

Unlikely is when it is a very low chance compared to the average, in this case the average is massivley larger then any other percentage, so yes, it is unlikely that a stranger was involved.

So if what you say is true, then a stranger was acting on impulse too and also faced with the fact that they must have made a mistake.

What makes these people so different then the normal parents who are faced with this kind of thing is they are both highly educated doctors where most homes may only have one professional. There is no weak link to crack, they are too smart for the police in this case.

My beliefe that an overdose was possible does not remove their critical thinking abilities doctors are trained to have. They could have killed their child by accidental overdose and still be capable of proper planning and execution to cover it up.

So anyone with an experience greater then your own in certain areas must be a lier if they do not agree with you?

There go the personal attacks again, what is it with those that are so unsure of themselves that they must strike out at those who do not agree with them?

I am well trained in many areas of law enforcement and even certified to teach things like defensive tactics and weapons but I only helped in a few investigations being as it was not very exciting to me, you can believe me or not but your belief does not change my experience my friend.

So you feel it is reasonable to call all these people liers and you know nothing about any of them but you also feel it is reasonable to ignore the most likely suspects in cases like this in favor of looking for a stranger when there is no evidence of a stranger.

Interesting.

But you also cannot transfur these smells indefinately, they must be on you, not just around you to transfer. By the way, you do not the doctors wear gloves and scrubbs when handling dead bodies right?

Kinda difficult for the dogs to respond to something still sitting on the items in the trash thousands of miles away, not on her body.

An indictment does not mean guilt just like being aquitted for murder does not make you innocent in reality. O.J. Simpson killed two people reguardless of the evidence or how it was presented.

DNA samples are taken many ways, most often by swabbing the inside cheek, not gathering hair that can be tested for possible drug induced sleep so parents can go out.

And yet you completely ignore the statistics of parents or close relatives/friends being responsible for over 90% of all crimes against children, imagine that.

Not my house, I have locks that cannot be "bumped" and my dogs will eat you before you ever get within reach of my door, but I see your point, the only thing you are forgetting is you will leave some evidence of your being there. You cannot enter a home and snatch kids without leaving some trace of your being there, but somehow the only evidence of people being there was the parents.

I am not sure of that judicial system, but in America, any prosecuter would be very scared of trying a case on only circumstancial evidence, and this being so pushed by the press would make it even more difficult.

No, unless better evidence comes up, they will not be tried.

You are right, lies are not evidence, but neither is nothing, and nothing is exactly what points to a stranger, an absence of evidence is not evidence as you keep trying to say.

While there is not much, there is a small amount pointing tword the parents and that combined with most children being harmed by someone close to them makes them the prime suspect until some evidence comes along to show someone else did it, but even without that, they are still guilty of child endangerment, that is a slam dunk, we have all the proof we need to clearly show that these parents should not have put these kids into harms way.

 

What would the motive be for a stranger? And why would they only take Maddy and not any of the other kids? And obviously the child is missing so the dogs should hit on something. Right? Also the dogs found the scent in the trunk of the car. Not inside the car. How many of you put your kids in the trunk? Jhony how would your daughters scent and fluids end up in a rental cars trunk?

This all reminds me of the JonBenet Ramsey case. I think the parents had something to do with that one too.

 

I used to make my kid ride in the trunk. Of course, I've always been an asshole.

 

I heard recently on CNN that they are close to clearning the parents, but nothing since.

 

I distrust the Communist News Network.

 

It was actually Fox news, sorry bout the mix-up.

 

Newest evidence seems to point to the direction that Maddy's parents grilled and ate her.