Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a

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

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?

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?

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..

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".

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.  

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 ?

@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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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  .

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.

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.
 
*

Hicks wrote: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.

Yes, good point. Kate writes: "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 can't be accounted for."

This is a KM classic. An absolute classic! Her brain wiring is quite fascinating.

So Kate is telling us that she did not see the stain on Madeleine's pyjama top the evening before. Therefore, it did not happen at dinner or bed-time the night before. So that rules out one innocent explanation for it

The inference is clear: it happened sometime after Madeleine was put to bed on Wednesday evening and some time before Madeleine changed out of her pyjamas the following morning.  And got dressed in whatever clothes she was going to wear for the kids' club morning activities which were 'mini-sail', speedboat ride and dinghy ride. 

So, the most likely innocent explanation  would be that Madeleine, while still in her pyjamas, drank tea when she had breakfast in the apartment on Thursday morning.

Come on then, Kate! What's the answer? It's important to know because obviously if Madeleine had drunk tea that morning while still in her pjs at breakfast then there is, thankfully, an innocent explanation.

"At the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might be all it was."

Okay, but a drink spillage when? If not at tea or bedtime the night before then how about at breakfast?

Did Madeleine drink tea that morning at breakfast? Because if she did, then that would explain the stain. Phew! At least it wasn't to do with 'the abductor', then. 

So did she or didn't she drink tea at breakfast?? We need to know.

Kate does not say!   

And of course if Madeleine had drunk tea that morning, and if a drink spillage had caused a large stain, then the brown stain would not be an 'unexplained detail.' Because the stain would be wet. And as it was a large stain, the pj top would probably be uncomfortably wet.

And no doubt there would have been an exchange between mother and daughter along the lines of: 'Oh Madeleine, you've managed to spill your drink down your top again. I'm going to have to wash that now.' Or something. 

(The other possible innocent explanation would be if Madeleine had woken up and got a drink during the night. But given that Kate was annoyed with Gerry on Wednesday evening and had slept in the children's bedroom that night, then Kate would have known if Madeleine had got up and spilt a drink down her top during the night.)

If Madeleine hadn't drunk tea that breakfast and there had been no drink spillage during the night then the stain would be dry. Which would point towards a more sinister explanation. One connected to Kate's supposed fear that the abductor entered the children's bedroom the previous evening, probably, as Kate infers from her book, between the 'last check' at around 11.05pm and Gerry arriving back at 11.50pm.

So was the large brown stain wet or dry then? 

Kate chooses not to elaborate.

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.


--------



That was really going to help the police find the (paedophile) abductor that had entered the children's bedroom and stolen Madeleine, wasn't it? Given that Kate McCann has suggested that the 'abductor' may have entered the apartment the previous evening and could have drugged Madeleine. And given that she suggests that the abductor could have drugged the twins on Thursday night, as they were practically in a coma, then there could easily have been traces of DNA left behind on clothes, bedding, toys.

What about the sheets? Were they included in the laundry that was washed on 5th May as well?

So the McCanns deliberately got rid of vital 'evidence' that might help find the people who were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance?

No surprises there, then.

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 ?

Yes PeterMac I agree. That's why Cat Baker's statement is so important. She 'allegedly' spent six hours with Madeleine on that day. Should have been easy for her to give a good description of what Madeleine was wearing when she was returned in the afternoon.
Was Baker questioned about Madeleine's clothes that day? If so I can't find any info. Her first statement tells us absolutely nothing about Madeleine. Then of course she was shipped out of the place which is unbelievable really considering what an important witness she was.
What a difference it would have made had she been questioned about the clothes.

From the McCannfiles........'In the afternoon (may 3rd) the McCann's played tennis while Madeleine went back to her Nanny at the children's club, who gave her tea at 5.30 pm'.

I have a feeling that Cat was a central player in this mystery....somehow!

j.rob wrote: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.


--------



That was really going to help the police find the (paedophile) abductor that had entered the children's bedroom and stolen Madeleine, wasn't it? Given that Kate McCann has suggested that the 'abductor' may have entered the apartment the previous evening and could have drugged Madeleine. And given that she suggests that the abductor could have drugged the twins on Thursday night, as they were practically in a coma, then there could easily have been traces of DNA left behind on clothes, bedding, toys.

What about the sheets? Were they included in the laundry that was washed on 5th May as well?

So the McCanns deliberately got rid of vital 'evidence' that might help find the people who were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance?

No surprises there, then.

And THIS would certainly have hindered the investigation. Forensic clues washed away. Oh dear, and they are doctors.
Never mind waiting months to accuse Gonçalo Amaral of hindering the investigation, they themselves had done it more than adequately within TWO DAYS.

Casey5 wrote: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.
 
*

Good find. Now why would the McCann's use the laundry on that day when they had a washing machine? Was that the day Kate couldn't use it and got the oc worker in to look at it? Is that another story invented to explain why the clothes were washed at the laundry? 
Mr Amaral was right about this being a BIG mistake. Sorry to say this but had it not been for these errors by the pj the
 McCann's might be in a different place today.

Once again,reading the above post by Casey5 ,we are reminded about the strange involvement of the British Ambassador, one that even back then shouted ..COVER UP!