Maria da Silva - did she clean 5A on the 30th?

by Guest 15.03.16 14:46

I've been doing some work on timelines, and this came up as rather important. Her daughter Fatima said in her statement:

At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description.

Maria da Silva, who was tasked with cleaning 5A (as well as B, C, D, H, I, K, L, M and P), states that the last time she cleaned the apartments was on Wednesday the 2nd:

With respect to her activities performed directly in the apartment, she declares that the last time she entered the apartment was on the Wednesday prior to the events, specifically on the 2nd of May, when she cleaned the apartment.

She remembers that when she entered Apartment A on the Wednesday, the parents were inside. After being duly authorized, she entered and carried out her work, because they were already on their way out. While she was in the apartment, there were no children there, and she supposed that they were in the creche.

Now, there is unfortunately no mention of what time she cleaned the apartment, so it's not possible to double check this with creche records. However, what I am curious about is whether or not Mrs da Silva cleaned the aprtment on the 30th, this is because Fatima said as much:

She thinks that her mother cleaned the apartments in that block on Monday and Wednesday (02-05).

This is incredibly important to the timeline, yet Maria da Silva makes no mention of whether she did clean 5A on the 30th. If she did not then her only previous relevant entry to the apartment was on the 28th, preparing the apartment before the family arrived.

Assuming both testimonies are true, which I have no reason to doubt at the moment, it presents two possible scenarios:

1. Madeleine died on the 29th, and (for reasons unknown) Mrs da Silva didn't enter the apartment on the 30th as she usually would. By her 2nd of May visit, Madeleine's body had already been moved to 5J because of the smell, so everything seems normal to her.

2. Madeleine died on the 29th, and this was when her body was concealed in the bag/placed in the parents' room. The bag was then moved to 5J when it began to putrefy.

We've been over the cadaverine before, and that dogs can detect cadaverine 2+ hours old, if the cadaver spent at least 2 minutes in that spot. What I haven't been able to discover is the amount of time it takes a human to smell this process.

Quoting this source

A few days after death, these bacteria and enzymes start the process of breaking down their host. The pancreas is full of so many bacteria that it essentially digests itself [source: Macnair]. As these organisms work their way to other organs, the body becomes discolored, first turning green, then purple, then black. If you can't see the change, you'll smell it soon enough, because the bacteria create an awful-smelling gas.

Elsewhere I have read that putrefaction usually takes about 3 days, varying by temperature (eg. in a hot climate decomposition becomes faster). Therefore it's somewhat unlikely that Mrs da Silva would've smelt anything on the 30th; but it remains important because if she was told she wasn't needed on that day, or didn't attend for other reasons, the 'why' becomes very relevant. If she did clean on the 30th, it's entirely possible the body had already been moved to 5J. Mrs da Silva's observations about that day would be very useful.

by j.rob 15.03.16 16:43

I would agree that the cleaners, particularly of 5A, are crucial eye-witnesses. What the cleaner/s saw on Monday and Wednesday when entering and cleaning the apartment could hold clues as to what happened. There is no account of the Monday cleaning as far as I can see. But I think it is important to note that at the time of the Wednesday clean both Kate and Gerry are there. The pair would have known that this was the day the cleaners went in and perhaps they wanted an independent witness to see them both? I wonder what time the cleaner arrived on the Wednesday and whether Kate and Gerry were supposed to have been somewhere else at the time she arrived?

The maintenance men who visited apartment 5A on Tuesday morning are also important eye-witnesses. Again, it is possible that an alibi was needed for Kate (and Gerry?) at around this time. They too might have seen things in the apartment that might be relevant. Or might have noticed Kate behaving in a certain way perhaps.

In any event, the above means that on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of that fateful week, independent eye-witnesses entered apartment 5A and spent some time there. The cleaner/s would have gone into each and every room. And the maintenance men would have gone into the kitchen if that is where the washing machine was located and also into Kate and Gerry's bedroom to mend the shutter mechanism.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 15.03.16 17:13

April28th wrote:If she did clean on the 30th, it's entirely possible the body had already been moved to 5J. Mrs da Silva's observations about that day would be very useful.

Did the dogs alert in 5J?

by Guest 15.03.16 17:22

j.rob wrote:The maintenance men who visited apartment 5A on Tuesday morning are also important eye-witnesses. Again, it is possible that an alibi was needed for Kate (and Gerry?) at around this time. They too might have seen things in the apartment that might be relevant. Or might have noticed Kate behaving in a certain way perhaps.

Good point. They would've been eyes-on with their work, and no smell would be emanating at that point. But there could be any number of minute observations they could make that would help.

@Google.Gaspar.Statements Eddie and Keela never went inside 5J (unfortunately). However the original sniffer dogs both, and seperately, alerted at the door of 5J. When it was open there was a fridge wide open with rotting meat inside.

by Nina 15.03.16 17:25

April28th wrote:
j.rob wrote:The maintenance men who visited apartment 5A on Tuesday morning are also important eye-witnesses. Again, it is possible that an alibi was needed for Kate (and Gerry?) at around this time. They too might have seen things in the apartment that might be relevant. Or might have noticed Kate behaving in a certain way perhaps.

Good point. They would've been eyes-on with their work, and no smell would be emanating at that point. But there could be any number of minute observations they could make that would help.

@Google.Gaspar.Statements Eddie and Keela never went inside 5J (unfortunately). However the original sniffer dogs both, and seperately, alerted at the door of 5J. When it was open there was a fridge wide open with rotting meat inside.

Surely for meat to rot it has to be hanging around for a good few days?

by Guest 15.03.16 17:43

Nina wrote:
April28th wrote:
j.rob wrote:The maintenance men who visited apartment 5A on Tuesday morning are also important eye-witnesses. Again, it is possible that an alibi was needed for Kate (and Gerry?) at around this time. They too might have seen things in the apartment that might be relevant. Or might have noticed Kate behaving in a certain way perhaps.

Good point. They would've been eyes-on with their work, and no smell would be emanating at that point. But there could be any number of minute observations they could make that would help.

@Google.Gaspar.Statements Eddie and Keela never went inside 5J (unfortunately). However the original sniffer dogs both, and seperately, alerted at the door of 5J. When it was open there was a fridge wide open with rotting meat inside.
Surely for meat to rot it has to be hanging around for a good few days?

Had to look this up to be sure. As an example, raw beef should be eaten in 1-2 days, if refrigerated. If not refrigerated, it will go bad within about 2 hours at room temperature (how long the smell takes, I've not established).

I don't recall reading it specified that the fridge was switched on or off (will try and find that now), only that the door was left open. But we're talking anything from 3-4 days, so I would say that's plenty of time. Source: http://www.stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/16508

by Nina 15.03.16 17:49

April28th wrote:
Nina wrote:
April28th wrote:
j.rob wrote:The maintenance men who visited apartment 5A on Tuesday morning are also important eye-witnesses. Again, it is possible that an alibi was needed for Kate (and Gerry?) at around this time. They too might have seen things in the apartment that might be relevant. Or might have noticed Kate behaving in a certain way perhaps.

Good point. They would've been eyes-on with their work, and no smell would be emanating at that point. But there could be any number of minute observations they could make that would help.

@Google.Gaspar.Statements Eddie and Keela never went inside 5J (unfortunately). However the original sniffer dogs both, and seperately, alerted at the door of 5J. When it was open there was a fridge wide open with rotting meat inside.
Surely for meat to rot it has to be hanging around for a good few days?

Had to look this up to be sure. As an example, raw beef should be eaten in 1-2 days, if refrigerated. If not refrigerated, it will go bad within about 2 hours at room temperature (how long the smell takes, I've not established).

I don't recall reading it specified that the fridge was switched on or off (will try and find that now), only that the door was left open. But we're talking anything from 3-4 days, so I would say that's plenty of time. Source: http://www.stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/16508

It was the smell I was thinking about April 28th. There seemed to have been a lot of smells around this group and this holiday.

by Guest 15.03.16 17:53

Nina wrote:It was the smell I was thinking about April 28th. There seemed to have been a lot of smells around this group and this holiday.

It's what drew me to the 5J conclusion initially too. Since I'm certain the body was moved again before the 'abduction' a covering smell was foreseen. Like you said - the same open door technique was later used with the car, only that was to attempt to dissipate a smell (created by meat, meat that somehow emitted bodily fluids too).

by **sharonl** 15.03.16 21:01

Nina wrote:
April28th wrote:
j.rob wrote:The maintenance men who visited apartment 5A on Tuesday morning are also important eye-witnesses. Again, it is possible that an alibi was needed for Kate (and Gerry?) at around this time. They too might have seen things in the apartment that might be relevant. Or might have noticed Kate behaving in a certain way perhaps.

Good point. They would've been eyes-on with their work, and no smell would be emanating at that point. But there could be any number of minute observations they could make that would help.

@Google.Gaspar.Statements Eddie and Keela never went inside 5J (unfortunately). However the original sniffer dogs both, and seperately, alerted at the door of 5J. When it was open there was a fridge wide open with rotting meat inside.
Surely for meat to rot it has to be hanging around for a good few days?

How did that meat get there? Surely the fridges would have been emptied and cleaned once the guests had left the apartment.

by Casey5 15.03.16 21:11

Cadaver dogs do not signal for any smell except human cadaver. They ignore rotten meat of any kind as that is what they are trained to do.

by Nina 15.03.16 21:23

Casey5 wrote:Cadaver dogs do not signal for any smell except human cadaver. They ignore rotten meat of any kind as that is what they are trained to do.

Maybe though in 2007 not everyone knew that. I certainly didn't as cadaver dogs were not part of my life though I had had dogs most of my life. I have learned many things that I didn't know in 2007, one being how to use Google.

by Guest 15.03.16 21:32

sharonl wrote:
Nina wrote:
April28th wrote:
j.rob wrote:The maintenance men who visited apartment 5A on Tuesday morning are also important eye-witnesses. Again, it is possible that an alibi was needed for Kate (and Gerry?) at around this time. They too might have seen things in the apartment that might be relevant. Or might have noticed Kate behaving in a certain way perhaps.

Good point. They would've been eyes-on with their work, and no smell would be emanating at that point. But there could be any number of minute observations they could make that would help.

@Google.Gaspar.Statements Eddie and Keela never went inside 5J (unfortunately). However the original sniffer dogs both, and seperately, alerted at the door of 5J. When it was open there was a fridge wide open with rotting meat inside.
Surely for meat to rot it has to be hanging around for a good few days?

How did that meat get there? Surely the fridges would have been emptied and cleaned once the guests had left the apartment.

Was 5J not a private let (not under control of OC as such) so cleaning would not be done as nobody was letting it at the time iirc

by j.rob 15.03.16 23:46

Casey5 wrote:Cadaver dogs do not signal for any smell except human cadaver. They ignore rotten meat of any kind as that is what they are trained to do.

Quite so.

I do believe this is where TM failed. They were arrogant enough, imo, to assume that they could outwit the Portuguese police force and also the police understanding of sniffer dogs. Plus the sniffer dogs themselves who are highly trained and highly intelligent and have no reason to lie.

The TM attempts (not to mention the UK media - especially Murdoch media - attempts) to discredit the Portuguese police and also the sniffer dogs are just so crude and contemptible....a total embarrassment, imo.

A complete fiasco, the whole thing. Unbelievably crass and idiotic. What a terrible indictment on all those high profile people who fawned over this beyond mediocre couple - including the Pope, if you please.....

spin

Nuts, the whole thing is nuts.

by j.rob 15.03.16 23:49

April28th wrote:
Nina wrote:It was the smell I was thinking about April 28th. There seemed to have been a lot of smells around this group and this holiday.
It's what drew me to the 5J conclusion initially too. Since I'm certain the body was moved again before the 'abduction' a covering smell was foreseen. Like you said - the same open door technique was later used with the car, only that was to attempt to dissipate a smell (created by meat, meat that somehow emitted bodily fluids too).

TM love doors and windows - open, closed, half-open and so on. Sometimes windows with 'whooshing' curtains.

Yes - a lot of smells surrounding the holiday and in fact surrounding this case...

by Nina 15.03.16 23:54

j.rob wrote:
April28th wrote:
Nina wrote:It was the smell I was thinking about April 28th. There seemed to have been a lot of smells around this group and this holiday.
It's what drew me to the 5J conclusion initially too. Since I'm certain the body was moved again before the 'abduction' a covering smell was foreseen. Like you said - the same open door technique was later used with the car, only that was to attempt to dissipate a smell (created by meat, meat that somehow emitted bodily fluids too).

TM love doors and windows - open, closed, half-open and so on. Sometimes windows with 'whooshing' curtains.

Yes - a lot of smells surrounding the holiday and in fact surrounding this case...

The whole thing stinks, but I was thinking rather more about the smells they tell us about.....the poor baby with the terrible diarrhoea, the smell of fish and meat and dirty nappies in the car. All these given to us by the McCanns or their group.Why?

by Guest 16.03.16 10:09

@Casey5 @Nina @j.rob
To play Devil's advocate here, I'm not certain cadaver dogs were ever expected. The body only being in transit through 5J, they would've been covering the physical smell of putrefaction to the human nose, not trying to fool cadaver dogs (only circumventing Mrs da Silva's nose in the short term). If evading cadaverine was something they knew about, they would never have left the body in 5A for over 125 minutes (minimum, allowing 30 seconds between moving locations).

However in saying that, if the coverup was as well planned as it evidently seems to have been, it's odd that noone thought of this in the early stages.

@HKP Yes it was, I don't believe we ever established who owned it, which is curious in itself. But it was later opened, hence the open fridge being discovered.

@Nina Given that Eddie and Keela searched 5B, I doubt whether the 'extreme diarrhoea' mentioned was due to putrefaction. However it is a very curious mention, and like you say - bad smells follow this case (literally and figuratively!). Perhaps they sensed the smell of BS was going to be obvious and tried to lay that smell at the feet of their own child roll

by Guest 16.03.16 12:18

Here are the only known testimonies of the repairmen, snipped for relevance, insular as expected:

Luis Felipe Monteiro Ferro

Date/Time: 2007/05/07 13H00
Maintenance Worker

. Questioned, the deponent states that in the scope of his functions and the day before the disappearance of the child, he only came into contact with the mother of the same, whose name he does not know;
. This happened on Tuesday, the first of May, in the sequence of a service that he had to carry out in the apartment where this family was staying, also known as Block G5, Letter A;
. This serviced was carried out between 10H00 and 11H00, together with his colleague who is named Mario, and consisted of the repair of a blind in the room of the parents of the minor;
. In this sequence, the deponent and his colleague also taught the mother of the child how to operate the washing machine;
. The woman in question was alone in the apartment;
. The only places of the apartment where the deponent and his colleague entered was the kitchen and the parent's bedroom;
. The deponent states that short of that service does not know of any other work carried out in the apartment since the arrival of that family in the resort and the disappearance of the girl

Mario Domingos Moreira

Date: 2007-05-08

Occupation: Handyman

When asked about the events being investigated he says that he only saw the girl's mother once. This happened during the exercise of his functions, and after instruction from his superiors he went to apartment 5 A.

His services had been requested because the shutters in the bedroom at the back of the apartment, facing the Tapas restaurant were damaged and with the aim of providing the mother with instructions regarding the operation of the washing machine. When asked, he said that the damage to the blinds was centred on the pull-handle, limiting their opening. He says that this kind of damage is quite frequent, given the fact of the need for some initial force to raise the shutter, sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge of the mechanism on the part of some of the tourists, who keep applying force, contrary to what is required, and which results in the violent destruction of the respective handles.

When questioned, he says that he never works alone, he is always part of a team of two. The other individual is his colleague, Luis Ferro, who accompanied him in the execution of the repairs mentioned above.

When asked, he says that he did not notice anything strange in the previous days, either in the apartments he entered or in the surrounding areas that could be connected to the disappearance.

by willowthewisp 16.03.16 13:05

April28th wrote:Here are the only known testimonies of the repairmen, snipped for relevance, insular as expected:

Luis Felipe Monteiro Ferro

Date/Time: 2007/05/07 13H00
Maintenance Worker

. Questioned, the deponent states that in the scope of his functions and the day before the disappearance of the child, he only came into contact with the mother of the same, whose name he does not know;
. This happened on Tuesday, the first of May, in the sequence of a service that he had to carry out in the apartment where this family was staying, also known as Block G5, Letter A;
. This serviced was carried out between 10H00 and 11H00, together with his colleague who is named Mario, and consisted of the repair of a blind in the room of the parents of the minor;
. In this sequence, the deponent and his colleague also taught the mother of the child how to operate the washing machine;
. The woman in question was alone in the apartment;
. The only places of the apartment where the deponent and his colleague entered was the kitchen and the parent's bedroom;
. The deponent states that short of that service does not know of any other work carried out in the apartment since the arrival of that family in the resort and the disappearance of the girl

Mario Domingos Moreira

Date: 2007-05-08

Occupation: Handyman

When asked about the events being investigated he says that he only saw the girl's mother once. This happened during the exercise of his functions, and after instruction from his superiors he went to apartment 5 A.

His services had been requested because the shutters in the bedroom at the back of the apartment, facing the Tapas restaurant were damaged and with the aim of providing the mother with instructions regarding the operation of the washing machine. When asked, he said that the damage to the blinds was centred on the pull-handle, limiting their opening. He says that this kind of damage is quite frequent, given the fact of the need for some initial force to raise the shutter, sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge of the mechanism on the part of some of the tourists, who keep applying force, contrary to what is required, and which results in the violent destruction of the respective handles.

When questioned, he says that he never works alone, he is always part of a team of two. The other individual is his colleague, Luis Ferro, who accompanied him in the execution of the repairs mentioned above.

When asked, he says that he did not notice anything strange in the previous days, either in the apartments he entered or in the surrounding areas that could be connected to the disappearance.

The repair person's were called to fix the "Broken Blind" that "Ham-fisted Gerry had managed to break when trying to open the Blinds?
Remarkable that the same blinds were in the area as marked by Eddie,Keela forensic trained Cadaver,blood, dogs,"Ask the Dogs,Sandra" eh Gerry?

by Nina 16.03.16 17:05

willowthewisp wrote:
April28th wrote:Here are the only known testimonies of the repairmen, snipped for relevance, insular as expected:

Luis Felipe Monteiro Ferro

Date/Time: 2007/05/07 13H00
Maintenance Worker

. Questioned, the deponent states that in the scope of his functions and the day before the disappearance of the child, he only came into contact with the mother of the same, whose name he does not know;
. This happened on Tuesday, the first of May, in the sequence of a service that he had to carry out in the apartment where this family was staying, also known as Block G5, Letter A;
. This serviced was carried out between 10H00 and 11H00, together with his colleague who is named Mario, and consisted of the repair of a blind in the room of the parents of the minor;
. In this sequence, the deponent and his colleague also taught the mother of the child how to operate the washing machine;
. The woman in question was alone in the apartment;
. The only places of the apartment where the deponent and his colleague entered was the kitchen and the parent's bedroom;
. The deponent states that short of that service does not know of any other work carried out in the apartment since the arrival of that family in the resort and the disappearance of the girl

Mario Domingos Moreira

Date: 2007-05-08

Occupation: Handyman

When asked about the events being investigated he says that he only saw the girl's mother once. This happened during the exercise of his functions, and after instruction from his superiors he went to apartment 5 A.

His services had been requested because the shutters in the bedroom at the back of the apartment, facing the Tapas restaurant were damaged and with the aim of providing the mother with instructions regarding the operation of the washing machine. When asked, he said that the damage to the blinds was centred on the pull-handle, limiting their opening. He says that this kind of damage is quite frequent, given the fact of the need for some initial force to raise the shutter, sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge of the mechanism on the part of some of the tourists, who keep applying force, contrary to what is required, and which results in the violent destruction of the respective handles.

When questioned, he says that he never works alone, he is always part of a team of two. The other individual is his colleague, Luis Ferro, who accompanied him in the execution of the repairs mentioned above.

When asked, he says that he did not notice anything strange in the previous days, either in the apartments he entered or in the surrounding areas that could be connected to the disappearance.
The repair person's were called to fix the "Broken Blind" that "Ham-fisted Gerry had managed to break when trying to open the Blinds?
Remarkable that the same blinds were in the area as marked by Eddie,Keela forensic trained Cadaver,blood, dogs,"Ask the Dogs,Sandra" eh Gerry?

Alerted on the narrow strip of balcony outside these bedroom patio doors.......
Copy/paste................
- Outside, Eddie gives two more alerts of cadaver smell, on the varanda of the couple's bedroom and also in a garden situation directly below it. Here, the bark is weaker, like a "could be", with some doubt, like a human shrugging their shoulders.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html

by j.rob 22.03.16 21:19

April28th wrote:@Casey5 @Nina @j.rob
To play Devil's advocate here, I'm not certain cadaver dogs were ever expected. The body only being in transit through 5J, they would've been covering the physical smell of putrefaction to the human nose, not trying to fool cadaver dogs (only circumventing Mrs da Silva's nose in the short term). If evading cadaverine was something they knew about, they would never have left the body in 5A for over 125 minutes (minimum, allowing 30 seconds between moving locations).

However in saying that, if the coverup was as well planned as it evidently seems to have been, it's odd that noone thought of this in the early stages.

@HKP Yes it was, I don't believe we ever established who owned it, which is curious in itself. But it was later opened, hence the open fridge being discovered.

@Nina Given that Eddie and Keela searched 5B, I doubt whether the 'extreme diarrhoea' mentioned was due to putrefaction. However it is a very curious mention, and like you say - bad smells follow this case (literally and figuratively!). Perhaps they sensed the smell of BS was going to be obvious and tried to lay that smell at the feet of their own child

I agree that they probably didn't expect cadaver dogs to go in - at least initially. But I suspect that the reason TM were so hell-bent on sticking to the abduction story was that it was imperative to maintain that Madeleine was an 'alive, findable' child at all costs. The last thing TM would have wanted initially would have been the cadaver dogs I suspect - if Detective Amaral is right in his theory that Madeleine died in the apartment and the parents covered it up and faked an abduction.

by Guest 23.03.16 20:03

Indeed @J.rob. Yesterday's nonsense tweets about selling the 10th anniversary in advance just shine a massive spotlight on that point. Disgusting PR spin machine, Madeleine is lost under a sea of, well frankly BS - and I'm getting sick of it.

I have to keep taking my mind off this case because it's making me physically ill at times when I peer into the disgusting truth underneath the spin.

by j.rob 24.03.16 18:18

April28th wrote:Indeed @J.rob. Yesterday's nonsense tweets about selling the 10th anniversary in advance just shine a massive spotlight on that point. Disgusting PR spin machine, Madeleine is lost under a sea of, well frankly BS - and I'm getting sick of it.

I have to keep taking my mind off this case because it's making me physically ill at times when I peer into the disgusting truth underneath the spin.

It is pretty shocking. I can't believe that Clarence Mitchell is giving talks about it in Australia. Surely most journalists know it is all BS?