Re: Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a

by Gaggzy 21.10.14 18:32

j.rob wrote:Kate writes a bit more about the tea stain on Madeleine's Eeyore pyjama top. And about the pyjamas.

From page 64:

At breakfast time:

"The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn't recall seeing it the night before and I had no idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup. So, at the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might well be all it was. But now, of course, we can no longer make assumptions about anything that cannot be accounted for."

Page 65:

Just before lunch-time:

"I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine's pyjama top on the veranda."

Page 65:

At around 6.30pm:

"Here is another of those vivid, now cherished memories: Madeleine, in her Eeyore pyjamas, sitting on my lap and cuddling in - something of which she was especially fond when she was tired."

-----------

Interesting that Kate is keen to tell the reader that she washed out the possible tea stain from Madeleine's pyjama top. And that the top was dried out on the veranda. And was dry enough to be able to be put back on by just after 6pm when Kate writes that she was drying the children after their bath. (Would that be possible given the cool weather conditions that day - although it was windy?)

Also of note is that Kate is vague about when Madeleine could have drunk the tea. She doesn't write: "Madeleine hadn't drunk tea the night before so how could it have got there?' Or: 'I remember that Madeleine did ask for a cup of tea at tea-time the evening before, so that could account for it.'

Kate would have remembered what the children had drunk at tea-time the evening before. But she is deliberately vague. Very unlikely for a nearly four year old to have had a cup of tea at children's dinner. Not impossible, but very unlikely, imo.

A quote from Kate McCann which doesn't make sense seeing as they can't account for Madeleine's whereabouts, yet they make the 'assumption' that she was abducted by a predatory paedophile.

I completely agree with the final sentence of your post, j. rob.

by Stillthinking 21.10.14 19:13

j.rob wrote:
Kate would have remembered what the children had drunk at tea-time the evening before. But she is deliberately vague. Very unlikely for a nearly four year old to have had a cup of tea at children's dinner. Not impossible, but very unlikely, imo.

She wouldn't have been wearing her pyjama top at the children's high tea though.

The mention of the tea stain has always interested me though as an example of giving extra detail about something seemingly unimportant.

by Hicks 21.10.14 19:18

The explanation for the tea stain story could be quite a simple one..... "the only other unexplained detail I remember from..THAT MORNING...(May 3rd)

The story is placing Madeleine alive on the Thursday morning, and also planting the idea that an abductor had been around the night before. Two birds one stone.

Imo poor Madeleine was no longer alive on Thursday morning.

by Stillthinking 21.10.14 19:36

Not being alive before the 3rd is too much of a push for me

I saw it more as an attempt to explain either:

Why the top had been wet and hanging out to dry that day
What the stain was in case anybody had seen it whilst it was drying
What the stain was in case the top was ever found

by Hicks 21.10.14 20:05

justhinking wrote:Not being alive before the 3rd is too much of a push for me

I saw it more as an attempt to explain either:

Why the top had been wet and hanging out to dry that day
What the stain was in case anybody had seen it whilst it was drying
What the stain was in case the top was ever found

If Madeleine had died on the Thursday,early evening or later, why would anyone wonder why her top was drying outside on that day? There would be no reason to question why it had been washed.

I doubt anyone would have seen what Kate was drying outside anyway. Look at 5a and the balcony.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzrearaptd.jpg&target=tlx_picr3x0.

by Stillthinking 21.10.14 20:29

I don't think anyone would have reason to question it at the time, no, but maybe Kate was worried that somebody might question it in hindsight after seeing the top on TV.

But as the "Why didn't you come when we were crying?" situation was used as a bizarre example that an abductor had done a trial run, you could be right that it was supposed to be more proof of a trial run

by Dont Make Me Laff 21.10.14 20:50

What I cant understand is the LACK of MBM's DNA
She was supposedly there from Saturday before she disappeared on Thursday?

apparently the McCanns transported DIRTY DIAPERS ???
SO WHAT happened to the knickers MBM was wearing that day?
What happened to the clothes she was wearing that day?

by Hicks 21.10.14 21:06

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:What I cant understand is the LACK of MBM's DNA
She was supposedly there from Saturday before she disappeared on Thursday?

apparently the McCanns transported DIRTY DIAPERS ???
SO WHAT happened to the knickers MBM was wearing that day?
What happened to the clothes she was wearing that day?

Regarding the lack of Madeleine's DNA, if I've got it right, there was a problem with contamination, there had to be a pure source. That's why GM had to go back to Rothley to get a hair from Madeleine's pillow. So I don't think there was a lack of DNA as such.

Good question about the clothes. Does anyone have any info on that?

by HelenMeg 21.10.14 21:22

Yes good question - what happened to or where are the clothes she wore in the day time. I think its possible that she may have died in them, but its certainly a question the Police
must have asked. The parents would have had to produce a set of the days clothes if they said she was abducted in pyjamas. I cant remember if this was mentioned in PJ files..

by SixMillionQuid 21.10.14 21:28

She didn't mention the tea stain in her 4 May statement but brings it up as an arguido

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

I've always thoughjt the tea stain remark was because they anticipated the PJ may have found clothing and may have had it analysed. "But I thought mark was a tea stain. Ha, easy mistake".

by Hicks 21.10.14 21:29

Perhaps the clothes Madeleine wore in the last photo. Pink/peach smock top, white cotton shorts. Remember Kate thought that maybe this outfit caught the abductors attention.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385707/Kate-McCann-says-Madeleine-McCanns-outfit-tempted-kidnapper.html.

by plebgate 21.10.14 21:41

Yes, what happened to Maddie's hat in the photo?

by Nina 21.10.14 21:48

Well when you look at the photograph of the opened wardrobe in the parent's bedroom the one with the missing bag in, there is a pile of what looks like laundry under it and there is nothing there of the colour of the top and shorts and the few bits of clothing that are around are fleeces and long sleeved tops.

by Hicks 21.10.14 21:55

The McCann's clearly state that Madeleine was wearing this outfit early afternoon on the 3rd.

I wonder if there are any references to what Madeleine was wearing on that afternoon ? Any of the witness statements ?Nannies? Tapas 9?. Was anyone asked I wonder

by justthinking 22.10.14 0:13

Hi
I haven't posted on here for ages so was surprised a few minutes ago to see some comments made under my username- it definitely isn't me, so is it possible that the forum would accept a new registration from someone using the same name? Or has there been a glitch on the site?

by Joss 22.10.14 3:38

justthinking wrote:Hi
I haven't posted on here for ages so was surprised a few minutes ago to see some comments made under my username- it definitely isn't me, so is it possible that the forum would accept a new registration from someone using the same name? Or has there been a glitch on the site?

Have no idea? Maybe you could ask one of the mods about it.

by Stillthinking 22.10.14 3:50

justthinking wrote:Hi
I haven't posted on here for ages so was surprised a few minutes ago to see some comments made under my username- it definitely isn't me, so is it possible that the forum would accept a new registration from someone using the same name? Or has there been a glitch on the site?

Apologies justthinking. I didn't realise there was already a member with such a similar username. blushing1

I am more than happy for admin to change my username to avoid confusion. Maybe to thinking or stillthinking if either of those are free ?

by plebgate 22.10.14 7:23

@justthinking (the one with the double T in name)

There is another poster here, Ultima Thule, who uses bold lettering when addressing another poster. I notice you are doing the same. Is there some reason for needing to bold another posters name all the time?

by j.rob 22.10.14 12:27

Just to go back to the subject of the pyjamas Madeleine was allegedly wearing when she was allegedly abducted, on page 84 of her book, Kate writes:

"Although Jane had never seen or known about Madeleine's Eeyore pyjamas, her description of this child's night clothes - light-coloured pink or white pyjamas with a 'trailing' or floral pattern and turn-ups on the bottoms - matched Madeleine's almost exactly. From the style of these pyjamas, she had also assumed the child was a girl."

I find that taking out the negatives in Kate's claims, or negating the strong positive assertions, can be interesting.

So, I would suggest that Jane had definitely seen and knew all about Madeleine's Eeyore pyjamas.

by **PeterMac** 22.10.14 12:33

Hicks wrote:The McCann's clearly state that Madeleine was wearing this outfit early afternoon on the 3rd.
I wonder if there are any references to what Madeleine was wearing on that afternoon ? Any of the witness statements ? Nannies? Tapas 9?. Was anyone asked I wonder

I think you will find that no one saw Madeleine on 3rd, which is why the forged Last Photo is so important to them.
Tapas group were shunted off to the Paraiso, Kate went running - past the Paraiso, Gerry had his Achilles tendon afternoon off,
and then everyone is back in the apartment before anyone comes back from the Paraiso.
Lots of strange coincidences ?

by j.rob 22.10.14 12:47

Hicks wrote:Perhaps the clothes Madeleine wore in the last photo. Pink/peach smock top, white cotton shorts. Remember Kate thought that maybe this outfit caught the abductors attention.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385707/Kate-McCann-says-Madeleine-McCanns-outfit-tempted-kidnapper.html.

I can't believe the tripe that KM comes up with.

Page 65 of Madeleine: "I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same."

These are not the words of a 'normal' mother of a nearly 4 year old, imo.

Madeleine had, according to Kate, attended the kids' club on Thursday morning. Madeleine's group 'had gone down to the beach for their 'mini-sail'activity. We heard later that they'd been on a speedboat as well as a dinghy. Fiona told me she had spotted Ella there but not Madeleine.'

But no mention in Kate's book about how Madeleine had enjoyed the mini-sailing or the speedboat activities that morning. Had she come back freezing cold - given it was quite a cool day with a strong wind? That would be pretty much fleece weather if you were out on a boat, I would have thought. And mini-sailing in a force 4 wind would be quite challenging, I would think.

Instead we just have Madeleine striding ahead of Kate happily swinging her bare arms to and fro in an outfit which apparently may have 'tempted' the abductor.

How insufferable this woman is.

by Jamming 22.10.14 12:55

PeterMac wrote:
Hicks wrote:The McCann's clearly state that Madeleine was wearing this outfit early afternoon on the 3rd.
I wonder if there are any references to what Madeleine was wearing on that afternoon ? Any of the witness statements ? Nannies? Tapas 9?. Was anyone asked I wonder

I think you will find that no one saw Madeleine on 3rd, which is why the forged Last Photo is so important to them.
Tapas group were shunted off to the Paraiso, Kate went running - past the Paraiso, Gerry had his Achilles tendon afternoon off,
and then everyone is back in the apartment before anyone comes back from the Paraiso.
Lots of strange coincidences ?

Someone saw her though didnt they ? And he was err, umm, he was at errrrr, paynes to err ummm tell us

by Stillthinking 22.10.14 13:09

plebgate wrote:@justthinking (the one with the double T in name)

There is another poster here, Ultima Thule, who uses bold lettering when addressing another poster. I notice you are doing the same. Is there some reason for needing to bold another posters name all the time?

Seriously?

It was me who bolded the usernames in that post and that post alone (not all the time, feel free to check) because the post was about the similar usernames and I was highlighting them by using bold. I would normally just use the quote function.

Now I don't want to get dragged into an off topic argument about who can and can't use bold for usernames. I'm here to discuss the case .

by Joss 22.10.14 13:09

j.rob wrote:
Hicks wrote:Perhaps the clothes Madeleine wore in the last photo. Pink/peach smock top, white cotton shorts. Remember Kate thought that maybe this outfit caught the abductors attention.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385707/Kate-McCann-says-Madeleine-McCanns-outfit-tempted-kidnapper.html.

I can't believe the tripe that KM comes up with.

Page 65 of Madeleine: "I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same."

These are not the words of a 'normal' mother of a nearly 4 year old, imo.

Madeleine had, according to Kate, attended the kids' club on Thursday morning. Madeleine's group 'had gone down to the beach for their 'mini-sail'activity. We heard later that they'd been on a speedboat as well as a dinghy. Fiona told me she had spotted Ella there but not Madeleine.'

But no mention in Kate's book about how Madeleine had enjoyed the mini-sailing or the speedboat activities that morning. Had she come back freezing cold - given it was quite a cool day with a strong wind? That would be pretty much fleece weather if you were out on a boat, I would have thought. And mini-sailing in a force 4 wind would be quite challenging, I would think.

Instead we just have Madeleine striding ahead of Kate happily swinging her bare arms to and fro in an outfit which apparently may have 'tempted' the abductor.

How insufferable this woman is.

Definitely Weird, or part of the script.

by Casey5 22.10.14 13:17

The McCanns sent all of their dirty clothing to the laundry on the 5th May 2007.
A real WTF moment imo. No parent would have their missing child's clothing washed:
a) Because Madeleine's smell would be on hers.
b) Because the police might need them.
Just like Kate's bewilderment that washing cuddle cat provoked head-shaking disbelieve the McCanns don't seem to even think about keeping Madeleine's clothes so that they can smell them and feel close to her and that's so not normal.

----------------
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id165.html

Also on 5th May 2007, two days after the announcement of Madeleine's disappearance, the police, according to Amaral, would commit an important error: "We were busy checking all the traces that came with the Ambassador. Traces that were moreover, found to be false".

New instructions from the regional national directorate of the PJ, given after the intervention of two British diplomats – Ambassador John Buck and Consul Bill Henderson – turned the investigator's attention away from the McCanns.

Kate and Gerry McCann, for the first and only time, went to hand in clothes to be washed in the Complex laundry, including Madeleine's clothes, which the inspectors only heard about two days later. Too late, according to Amaral.

"At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May", says Gonçalo Amaral.

It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children's clothes - those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie - washed.

"That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part", admits Gonçalo Amaral.

"Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine's family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children's clothing... ", states one of the laundry workers.

Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.

*