Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a

That's unusual Somni-451. Perhaps our school register systems are different here, but class teachers usually have a class register in which pupils names are written down at the start of a new year. Names are called out according to this registry, and the relevant pupils will answer to their names.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

Sonmi-451 wrote:@Stillthinking

"It relies on a lookalike 3 year old being expected to lie and pretend that she is Madeleine for a full day"

In 2013 my 3yr old son had spent several weeks at a 'pre-school' in Kent (just outside Faversham, a couple of miles West along the A2) before it was my turn to pick him up.

I stood by the fence, by the 'pre-fab' block just where his Mum had told me to wait, in order to pick him up.

I didn't see him, so I gradually shuffled my way towards the teaching assistant whose job it was to 'pass' the kids out to their parents. I said that I was there to pick up 'O.....'.

...and I was met with a look of bewilderment and suspicion.

It turned out my son had said he was called 'R......', and so it was by this name the teaching assistant had known him for the previous few weeks.

So... Here's a 'professional' whose job was to teach the kids and also make sure they only went off with their parents...and yet they didn't even know my son's name!! There was no reference to the register, no correlation with the name on his bag... Nothing!

...and you think that after just a week the resort's creche workers (of whom at least one was totally new in the job) would know "who was who"?

Don't forget the Mcs had 2 associated on the inside of MW creches - Amy Tierney & Charlotte Pennington. Their role in any of this would need investigating IMO

Yes.
If NSY want to solve this case, they have to re-interview Baker, Pennington and Tierney. 
(Maybe they already did it ???) 
It is my opinion.

PeterMac wrote:Brilliant find.  Thanks for that.

Me or Grand Finale?

Grande Finale wrote:

Nina wrote:No it wasn't according to the weather records, however according to the last photo it was very warm 

Ive been wondering where to slot this in. "According to the last photo it was warm"
A bit like the weather on Sunday 29th April 2007 in fact, take a look at the video its like
travelling back in time.

But it WAS fine and warm on May 3, see here: http://www.vivendamiranda.com/uk/weatherlog
Date: 03 May, 2007
Time: 20:21:14

entry

Today the sun is back and we have 21ºC. The wind was hounting the clouds, with success!
(Don't know what "hounting" means though)

Apologies for being off topic, not trying to derail the thread but the subject of the weather on 3 May 2007 did come up

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

Don't forget the Mcs had 2 associated on the inside of MW creches - Amy Tierney & Charlotte Pennington. Their role in any of this would need investigating IMO

How do you mean "associated on the inside" ?

Going back to the very beginning....one of the strongest themes in this story initially was the determination of the Mark Warner organisation to preserve its brand and safeguard its image at all costs.  The subtext of Mark Warner's advertising might be "we care for your children so you don't have to" (thanks to"Frazier" for that), so the LAST thing they would want is any suggestion that their procedures and quality control were anything less that rigorous (which I'm sure they were).

As discussed many times on the DM and 3A forums - lots and lots of people falsify records after the event prior to Health & Safety Executive visits and Quality Control inspections.

I have no idea if Madeleine was around on the afternoon of 3rd May 2007 -neither, I suspect do the nannies, whatever the records may show.

ALL costs?

there is a link missing:

Maddie disappeared on MWs watch;

Why did the Mecs not sue THEM?

For instance, for their failure to inform them (=the Mecs) of the abundance of child molesters, rapists, pedos, what have you, on their doorstep?

The Mecs never sued MW

Why on earth not?

They could have take  them to the cleaners and test the didn't.

So the question remaining is this: what did MW have on the Mecs, to enforce their silence?

Must have been something grand, to have the Mecs absolving them from negligence in informing the Mecs of the hazards of accommodating the Mecs on their (MWs) premises,  innit?

So what could it be that MW had on the Mecs, to convince them not to sue the pants of MW?

Suggestions anyone?

Portia wrote:
So what could it be that MW had on the Mecs, to convince them not to sue the pants of MW?

Suggestions anyone?

The emails between MW and DP from before the holiday, which showed that they were well aware there was no baby listening service at this resort ?

Portia wrote:ALL costs?

there is a link missing:

Maddie disappeared on MWs watch;

Why did the Mecs not sue THEM?

For instance, for their failure to inform them (=the Mecs) of the abundance of child molesters, rapists, pedos, what have you, on their doorstep?

The Mecs never sued MW

Why on earth not?

They could have take  them to the cleaners and test the didn't.

So the question remaining is this: what did MW have on the Mecs, to enforce their silence?

Must have been something grand, to have the Mecs absolving them from negligence in informing the Mecs of the hazards of accommodating the Mecs on their (MWs) premises,  innit?

So what could it be that MW had on the Mecs, to convince them not to sue the pants of MW?

Suggestions anyone?

Stillthinking wrote:

Portia wrote:
So what could it be that MW had on the Mecs, to convince them not to sue the pants of MW?

Suggestions anyone?

The emails between MW and DP from before the holiday, which showed that they were well aware there was no baby listening service at this resort ?

True....but the McCanns could still claim that they had been been deliberately left in the dark about how potentially dangerous the place was.....any suggestion that the "abduction" was an inside job by an employee or ex-employee such as Tractorman of MW should put TM and MW in conflict.

Yet despite an abductor being on the loose, entering MW properties, the McCanns were prepared to entrust the twins to MW's care in the creche - the collusion between MW and the McCanns has always been disturbing.

Stillthinking wrote:

Portia wrote:
So what could it be that MW had on the Mecs, to convince them not to sue the pants of MW?

Suggestions anyone?

The emails between MW and DP from before the holiday, which showed that they were well aware there was no baby listening service at this resort ?

Could have been the above, but I'm not convinced the mcs could have sued MW, your children are always your own responsibility.

Besides is it true MW offered babysitting service and we're turned away by the McCanns?

Re: Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a

Dee Coy wrote:Interesting.

But as there was no 'defence' at that point, surely no request for destruction could have been made?

Dee Coy

It's a bit long but note the date the warning/offer was sent out from the FSS - August the 21st 2007

In a roundabout way vis Nuclear DNA:

The idea of the pillowcase and parental control sample was to compile a reference sample of  Madeleine's DNA due to a lack of
nuclear DNa from Madeleine at the time.

If the the " blood spot in a cardboard frame " was Madeleine's heel stick sample from the hospital where she was born
then this will be nuclear DNA - the best sample to test against.

If SY and the INML want to do further tests this would be the best to test against - not the pillowcase or the parental control sample.

If the heel stick sample has been destroyed then the FSS could not have tested it against the pillowcase/parental control sample as it no longer existed.

If it was tested there should be a readout of sample JRB/1 to cross reference against of any collected cellular material.

It is a puzzle that all the doctors in the group never suggested acquiring this highly provenaced DNA from the hospital in the first place, nevermind the FSS who should have known about the test anyway.

Below is the letter the FSS sent out to Stuart Prior - Leicester Police - with thanks tot he maddiecasefiles:





It didn't land at the FSS until 12/10/14
Outros Apensos pdf01 page97 (96)

and

Processos Vol IX
Page 2289
=====================================================================================================



FSS - The Forensic Science Service


Destruction of Samples
(Related Document: FSS-GP-050)


Code:
Client reference: URN 07106085 Laboratory reference: 300 655 190
Investigating Officer: Det Supt Prior Order reference: 400 913 609




A - Perishable Samples

Certain samples constitute a potential health risk. With the concurrence of the Home Office, it has been decided that such samples will not be submitted to the Courts unless specifically requested by the Defence (This is an extension of the procedures for the disposal of blood samples previously agreed by the Lord Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.)

The Laboratory has examined one or more of the samples listed below. They will not be returned to you but will be destroyed in due course unless we are requested by the Defence to preserve them. You should notify the Defence Solicitors in accordance with Home Office Circulars 40/73 and 74/82, which allow a period of 21 days in which notice in writing must be given, by the defendant or his legal representative, to the laboratory to prevent the samples being destroyed.

- Blood samples
- Saliva samples
- Swabs from body orifices
- Other swabs bearing potentially hazardous material
- Vomit, faeces, urine, etc

The above list includes perishable personal samples, the destruction of which is required by Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, (1984).


B - Non-Perishable Personal Samples

The destruction of other, non-perishable, personal samples is required by Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, (1984). These include:

- Control head hair samples
- Control pubic hair samples
- Finger nail samples
- Casts, e.g. of teeth or feet

Except as below these non-perishable, personal samples are returned to you as parts of exhibits for production at court etc. The laboratory is not responsible for their destruction.

The part of these samples, which were removed for examination, will be retained by the laboratory for the period of time as specified in the 'Memorandum of Understanding for Retained Materials' (3, 7 or 30 years) from the date of this notice to allow access to other legitimate parties. After this period, in the absence of written instruction to the contrary, the retained samples will be destroyed and a record made of their destruction.


Signed:

Date: 21 August 2007

FSS-GF-247, Page 1 of 1, Issue 4

Stillthinking wrote:

Varriott wrote:

Actually, 'the theory', as outlined by Johanna, and also argued by Dr Martin Roberts, is that the McCanns simply signed Madeleine in and out of the creche.  There was no need to ask a 3-year-old to lie.  3-year-old are not really capable of lies in any case.  Their notion is that the creche workers would be reluctant to admit that the wrong number of people were signed in that day.  If someone just called the wrong child 'Madeleine' that would be enough.  As for the other parents agreeing - how do you explain the multiple inconsistencies and clear falsehoods on record coming out of the mouths of the other parents?

Ok that must be another theory ...so that theory is that the McCanns turned up at the creche for Madeleine's age group, 4 times  that day with no child and just signed the name Madeleine in and out, morning and afternoon and nobody noticed? Again it is a crazy risk to take because the risk of anybody noticing that Madeleine isn't with them at any point, during the 4 journeys to and from creche, at the creche sign in, and if/when the staff do a head count, (particularly if there was a boat trip etc.) immediately puts the focus on the McCanns. I think, like the theory of Gerry carrying a decoy child through Luz that night, it's an unnecessary risk to take when you don't have to and when the risk of being revealed immediately puts you in the spotlight. I can't imagine anyone, let alone someone as controlling as Gerry appears to be, taking a risk that leaves too many variables that he has no control over. It's just too big  a risk to take when you think what the fallout would be if anybody noticed their deception.

By the standards of 'It's just too big a risk to take' one can easily rule out both a staged abduction and a stranger abduction.  But, clearly, one of these two things happened.  It is not up to us, or to the police, to speculate on which is more feasible.  We are entitled to our opinions, but it's a question of where the evidence points.

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?

I highlight the names of other members in my posts by using bold lettering for a number of reasons, plebgate, including, but not limited to, drawing their attention to my responses if a period of time has elapsed or the contributions of others have intervened between their posts and my replies.   .  

Although it is unlikely to have escaped your attention that there is no double T in my user name, your remarks are such that I feel it incumbent on me to categorically state that this is the one and only internet forum of which I am a member and that 'ultimaThule' is, and always has been, my one and only 'identity' on this site.

Date: 02 May, 2007
Time: 19:47:45

entry

The clouds didn`t like to go away today. The wind was not strong enough and the sun had no chance! The temperatures are 18ºC.

taken from http://www.vivendamiranda.com/uk/weatherlog

Another photo was purported to have been taken on 2nd May:see photo and link below - how could this have been taken on 2nd May according to the weather log above??
http://truthformadeleine.com/the-photos/the-playground/

The playground photo was released on or about Saturday May 26. An article appeared on the Sky News website on May 27 (see below). It says that the photo was taken on May 2. More concerning is that the article says that it shows Madeleine and her younger twins Sean and Amelie playing with their father Gerry. As we have shown here quite conclusively, this is not Amelie McCann sitting on the grass. Why then did Sky get this story so blatantly wrong?

HelenMeg wrote:Another photo was purported to have been taken on 2nd May:see photo and link below - how could this have been taken on 2nd May according to the weather log above??
http://truthformadeleine.com/the-photos/the-playground/

Yes, the shadows are strong
However, that photo was never "taken" at all, 2nd May or any other day

Everything on the left hand side has a long (late afternoon) shadow going from bottom left to right and everything from middle to right hand side has a shadow going from bottom right to top, or no shadow at all
I can't believe this was ever released as an official photo because nobody in the world has ever taken a photo like that

So much discussion about the "last photo" but that one is impossible
To get the thread back on track, it needs to be reviewed along with all the other stuff, to find out where it came from

Grande Finale wrote:

Nina wrote:No it wasn't according to the weather records, however according to the last photo it was very warm    And of course and washing requires hand wringing to get rid of excess water so would be even wetter.

Ive been wondering where to slot this in. "According to the last photo it was warm"

A bit like the weather on Sunday 29th April 2007 in fact, take a look at the video its like
travelling back in time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_OtStlTGc

Re the weather: Each day of the week is well documented photographically here:

http://www.formulawindsurfing.org/event/112

Lance De Boils wrote:

Grande Finale wrote:

Nina wrote:No it wasn't according to the weather records, however according to the last photo it was very warm    And of course and washing requires hand wringing to get rid of excess water so would be even wetter.

Ive been wondering where to slot this in. "According to the last photo it was warm"

A bit like the weather on Sunday 29th April 2007 in fact, take a look at the video its like
travelling back in time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_OtStlTGc

Re the weather: Each day of the week is well documented photographically here:

http://www.formulawindsurfing.org/event/112

Thanks.
May 3rd: No day for pool, Jeans,jackets and hoodies.

And there you have it, impossible for the 3rd, GM sweating then, jeans and hoodies, and it doesn't even look late evening!
IMO

The McCanns continue to bring a form of torture to their entire family by perpetuating a multitude of lies and deceptions.Surely they can see that it has gone on long enough.They will not bring peace to all their lives until the charade is dropped.Their weight of their consciences continue to play out in front of everyone.  

They must bring an end to their lies and pain.

Just end it all by confessing the weaknesses that dominate them.

palm tree wrote:And there you have it, impossible for the 3rd, GM sweating then, jeans and hoodies, and it doesn't even look late evening!
IMO

...except that this is another photo from the 3rd May windsurfing event



looks pretty nice to me

3rd May was not cool and cloudy, and in a suntrap away from the breeze it would have been pleasantly warm

you will notice on the "last photo" pic that M's hair is blowing across her face roughly from the west (the correct direction for the wind that day)

Therefore 3rd May cannot be discounted on those grounds

But it is cloudy in that picture. And they're wearing zipped-up coats and sweaters!