Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

by Verdi 26.08.16 23:59

To adhere to the prevailing theory that Kate McCann's clothing was contaminated by direct contact with a corpse, you would also have to believe she worked alone.

She alone was responsible for a death - she alone removed a body - she alone cleaned up afterwards. Is that really likely?

by Verdi 27.08.16 0:06

Roxyroo wrote:These clothes could've been in the boot at some point and this is when transference happened.

Verbal Report by Martin Grime Relating to the Searches Carried out with the Dogs in the Ocean Club Apartments - Apartment 5a [snipped]..

"What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area.

If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner."

by Guest 27.08.16 0:52

- OBJECTS FOR EXAMINATION
1. One (01) pink cloth toy, with yellow paws and ears and blue label, make "cuddle cat", with a third in wood and a green band, alluding to Fatima, that was found in the lounge on top of a large chair [armchair].
2. Clothes, shoes, bags [hand-bags; suitcases] and travel bags [knapsacks] that were packed as follows:
- Lounge, two boxes.
- Master bedroom, two boxes.
- Twins' bedroom, one suitcase.
- Visitors' bedroom, one suitcase.

1. Between 23h20 and 23h30 the two dogs were allowed to reconoitre the entire area to guarantee that there were no existing odours - and none were detected by them.

2. Between 23h30 and 23h40 items from the box labelled 'common room' were inspected by the blood dog without result.
- At 23h41 the cadaver dog began its inspection and 'marked' some clothing on the edge of the area. The inspection ended at 23h52 with the clothing having been collected for later direct examination and photographic report.

3. Clothes from the box labelled Lounge ("sitting room") were inspected by the blood dog between 00h02 (now 3 August) and 00h05 without any result. The same clothes were inspected by the cadaver dog between 00h06 and 00h07 also without any result.

4. Then the suitcase labelled 'Twins bedroom' was inspected, followed by two sets of inspections of its contents due to the large number of individual pieces it contained: the blood dog inspected [the first set] between 00h12 and 00h15, and then [the second set] between 00h22 and 00h24 - both without any result.
The cadaver dog inspected [set one] between 00h16 and 00h17, then [set two] between 00h25 and 00h26, also without any result.

5. An empty suitcase labelled 'Visitors bedroom' was inspected, along with sundry clothing packed in a box labelled Outside Clothes rack. Between 00h40 and 00h43 the blood dog inspected without any result, and in its turn the cadaver dog inspected between 00h44 and 00h45, also without any result.

6. The clothes packed in the box labelled "couple's bedroom 1" was inspected by the blood dog between 00h51 and 00h55, while the cadaver dog inspected it between 00h56 and 0057 without any result from either dog.
because there were so many pieces of clothing in the box a second inspection was conducted between 01h04 and 01h07 by the blood dog, and between 01h08 and 01h09 by the cadaver dog, [again] without any result from either dog.

7. The clothes packed in the box labelled "couple's bedroom 2" was inspected by the cadaver dog between 01h20 and 01h22, then the blood dog between 01h23 and 01h25. Nothing abnormal was detected by either dog.

The language here implies all the marked items were found in one round of inspections. What is curious to me is that we don't have a confirmation of which room they came from. Assuming the answer is 'common room', that wasn't previously listed as a box.

Whatever the progeny, we can see that all the marked items were found in the same session. Given the nature of transferrence, can we attach a degree of certainty that these items were contaminated with cadaverine compound at the same time?

And since the red tshirt was not packed with the twin's bedroom clothes/items, can we make any conclusions on its prior owner?

I have a feeling they knew which items they needed to look at (perhaps Kate is wearing said clothes in unreleased photos), and the fact they were found in one go was not coincidental. To be a fly on the wall in that meeting..

by Doug D 27.08.16 8:12

Verdi:

‘To adhere to the prevailing theory that Kate McCann's clothing was contaminated by direct contact with a corpse, you would also have to believe she worked alone.’

Why?

If KM’s ‘black & whites’ had gone missing, they would have been missed straight away.

A pair of GM’s chino’s & a polo shirt, no such problem.

by Verdi 27.08.16 12:35

Doug D wrote:
If KM’s ‘black & whites’ had gone missing, they would have been missed straight away.

Sorry, I'm not with you - missed by who?

by MayMuse 27.08.16 15:10

Verdi wrote:2nd August 2007

Using cardboard boxes, all the clothes in the house were taken to a specially prepared area to be placed on the ground for the dogs.

At 23h20 all the clothes are spread out. Eddie marks a strong cadaver odour on Kate's clothes: slacks in black/white check and a sleeveless white blouse. He barks frenetically.

Keela finds no blood vestiges.
----------

Findings, as detailed in the PJ's 57-page report summary

The clothes and belongings of the Family MCCANN

1. cadaver odour dog:

two pieces of clothing belonging to KATE HEALY

a piece of clothing of the minor Madeleine

plush toy, possibly belonging to Madeleine (it was detected cadaver odour, when the soft toy was inside the residence – at the date occupied by the family)
----------

Witness statement of Martin Grime by letter rogatory - 14th May 2008

Q: With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver

OR

Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred?

A: There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
----------

As I said earlier, it's extremely unlikely Kate McCann would have continued wearing a pair of pants and/or a top if the same articles of clothing were worn when handling a corpse, especially the corpse of her own precious child. Hence I opine that KM's clothing was most likely contaminated by transference.

I think the desire to believe in a theory is clouding judgement. whatever anyone wishes to think, the dog alerts were not corroborated by forensic analysis so it's a moot point anyway. The fact remains that the dogs alerted to cadavar scent and blood scent on ONLY items associated with the McCann family. The dog alerts are most certainly important intelligence but without confirmation they can be easily dismissed by law and the McCann defence mechanism.

Really? Like she wore them to work when she supposedly dealt with "dead" bodies; the explanation of why cadaver odour was found on them. Not one mention of "it could not be" (horror, horror) but a plausible reason? The same given for cuddle cat? So there you are, the very same suggestion can be used for transference from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a and Madeleine!
Not buying it @verdi

by Verdi 27.08.16 15:28

MayMuse wrote:Really? Like she wore them to work when she supposedly dealt with "dead" bodies; the explanation of why cadaver odour was found on them. Not one mention of "it could not be" (horror, horror) but a plausible reason? The same given for cuddle cat? So there you are, the very same suggestion can be used for transference from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a and Madeleine!
Not buying it @verdi

I don't think you will find anything to confirm that claim was made by either Kate or Gerry McCann. If I remember correctly, it was first mentioned by a Portuguese tabloid and subsequently regurgitated by the UK press. Around the time it might have been suggested that the claim came from a family member (an unnamed source), not sure - if you can locate some verification to prove me wrong I should be grateful. I don't think the cuddlecat issue was ever mentioned in any of these press reports.

The remainder of your post I don't understand.

by Verdi 27.08.16 15:45

Roxyroo wrote:These clothes could've been in the boot at some point and this is when transference happened. I don't know why u jumped on my post Kaz, what I meant was that in their attempts to obfiscate they made mistakes.

Quite so Roxyroo - indeed there are any number of possibilities, without further evidence I think it's impossible to determine how Kate McCann's clothing became contaminated with cadavar scent. What I find particularly hard to comprehend is why, hypothetically speaking, a mother (or father for that matter) who had come in contact with the deceased body of her own child (be it fair means of foul) would continue to wear the same clothing as worn when handling the corpse. Doesn't bear thinking about.

The Renault Scenic features prominently in this mystery in my opinion. One such example being the smell that reportedly came from the boot and the claim by a neighbour when interviewed by the PJ, that the boot was left open for hours on end - conveninetly explained by Sandy Cameron (Gerry McCann's brother-in-law) how he cleaned the boot after liquids from meat and seafood dripped out of a plastic bag and the car started smelling and leaving the car open to air after cleaning.

There are of course other explanations emanating from the McCann faction as to why the car boot was a bit whiffy - ranging from dirty nappies to sweaty sandals to rotting meat to fish leakage.

by MayMuse 27.08.16 16:00

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Really? Like she wore them to work when she supposedly dealt with "dead" bodies; the explanation of why cadaver odour was found on them. Not one mention of "it could not be" (horror, horror) but a plausible reason? The same given for cuddle cat? So there you are, the very same suggestion can be used for transference from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a and Madeleine!
Not buying it @verdi
I don't think you will find anything to confirm that claim was made by either Kate or Gerry McCann. If I remember correctly, it was first mentioned by a Portuguese tabloid and subsequently regurgitated by the UK press. Around the time it might have been suggested that the claim came from a family member (an unnamed source), not sure - if you can locate some verification to prove me wrong I should be grateful. I don't think the cuddlecat issue was ever mentioned in any of these press reports.

The remainder of your post I don't understand.

It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.
If we are to believe cross-contamination / transference then we have to accept that the cadaver odour could indeed be from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a; it applies to both.
A get out clause.
That's my opinion on the matter.
Add note; the video showing the "dogs" with the clothes, are we to believe that is all the clothes they had on that holiday, where were Madeleine's shorts and tops, shoes and socks etc, plus the twins and Gerrys;there was not enough clothes for a family of five.

by kaz 27.08.16 17:43

It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.
If we are to believe cross-contamination / transference then we have to accept that the cadaver odour could indeed be from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a; it applies to both.
A get out clause.
That's my opinion on the matter.
Add note; the video showing the "dogs" with the clothes, are we to believe that is all the clothes they had on that holiday, where were Madeleine's shorts and tops, shoes and socks etc, plus the twins and Gerrys;there was not enough clothes for a family of five.

Yes, the comment from Kate's mother. It's a very defensive statement and patently ridiculous and incidentally acknowledges the sterling work done by the dogs. What we do know unequivocally is that cadaver odour was found on two items of Kate's clothing , one of the children's and on Cuddle Cat. I don't think that they got rid of any clothes . I truly believe that cadaver odour seeking dogs were not in their frame of reference. That's why it's so important. If it had have been, those clothes would have 'disappeared ' along with any other incriminating evidence. I don't understand why we have to keep talking 'transference ' here and not direct contact. I know it upsets and negates other theories but I'm not bothered about any one theory............I don't have one.....................I'm merely looking for a 'fit' that correlates with evidence. As I said previously the dogs' evidence stands alone ; it's free from subjective interpretation and the items where it was scented could well tell us a story.
I previously stated that Kate was wearing her check trousers during her early morning violent episode with Madeleine and admittedly was concerned that Kate was missing some sort of top. However MayMuse has corrected me in that Kate's top was also contaminated. This provides to me a much more plausible and vivid image of the likely scenario.
@ verdi
What I find particularly hard to comprehend is why, hypothetically speaking, a mother (or father for that matter) who had come in contact with the deceased body of her own child (be it fair means of foul) would continue to wear the same clothing as worn when handling the corpse. Doesn't bear thinking about.
And yet, these are the same clothes that Kate wore to work and came into contact with cadavers resulting in transference which she later took on HOLIDAY with her. Surely they are not that strapped for cash ? The McCanns were presenting happy smiley faces just days after Madeleine's 'abduction.' I think your sensitivities are in a parallel universe to theirs.

by Verdi 27.08.16 19:50

MayMuse wrote:
It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.

In the interest of clarity, would you be so kind as to post a link/s to where Kate McCann's mother made this claim.

Not that I believe it for one second - apart from the extremely unlikely event of her wearing such items of clothing for attending a death during her course of work, the mere suggestion that she took cuddlecat to work is risible at best.

by Verdi 27.08.16 20:07

kaz wrote:

It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.
If we are to believe cross-contamination / transference then we have to accept that the cadaver odour could indeed be from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a; it applies to both.
A get out clause.
That's my opinion on the matter.
Add note; the video showing the "dogs" with the clothes, are we to believe that is all the clothes they had on that holiday, where were Madeleine's shorts and tops, shoes and socks etc, plus the twins and Gerrys;there was not enough clothes for a family of five.
Yes, the comment from Kate's mother. It's a very defensive statement and patently ridiculous and incidentally acknowledges the sterling work done by the dogs. What we do know unequivocally is that cadaver odour was found on two items of Kate's clothing , one of the children's and on Cuddle Cat. I don't think that they got rid of any clothes . I truly believe that cadaver odour seeking dogs were not in their frame of reference. That's why it's so important. If it had have been, those clothes would have 'disappeared ' along with any other incriminating evidence. I don't understand why we have to keep talking 'transference ' here and not direct contact. I know it upsets and negates other theories but I'm not bothered about any one theory............I don't have one.....................I'm merely looking for a 'fit' that correlates with evidence. As I said previously the dogs' evidence stands alone ; it's free from subjective interpretation and the items where it was scented could well tell us a story.
I previously stated that Kate was wearing her check trousers during her early morning violent episode with Madeleine and admittedly was concerned that Kate was missing some sort of top. However MayMuse has corrected me in that Kate's top was also contaminated. This provides to me a much more plausible and vivid image of the likely scenario.
@ verdi
What I find particularly hard to comprehend is why, hypothetically speaking, a mother (or father for that matter) who had come in contact with the deceased body of her own child (be it fair means of foul) would continue to wear the same clothing as worn when handling the corpse. Doesn't bear thinking about.
And yet, these are the same clothes that Kate wore to work and came into contact with cadavers resulting in tranhesference which she later took on HOLIDAY with her. Surely they are not that strapped for cash ? The McCanns were presenting happy smiley faces just days after Madeleine's 'abduction.' I think your sensitivities are in a parallel universe to theirs.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just being contrary for fun? You're making nonsense out of counter argument rather than adjusting your thoughts to include an element of logic.

You say, I quote - "I previously stated that Kate was wearing her check trousers during her early morning violent episode with Madeleine". That is pure invention without a scrap of evidence or informed intelligence to support it. You don't even know whether the pants were packed for the holiday, bought in Portugal or taken over there by a family member or friend. They were staying at Praia da Luz for over four months, obviously they had a change of clothes other than their holiday packing.

This is just going round in circles, not leading anywhere. I can't waste any more time on a futile exercise, guess we will have to agree to disagree.

by kaz 27.08.16 20:33

Verdi wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just being contrary for fun? You're making nonsense out of counter argument rather than adjusting your thoughts to include an element of logic.

You say, I quote - "I previously stated that Kate was wearing her check trousers during her early morning violent episode with Madeleine". That is pure invention without a scrap of evidence or informed intelligence to support it. You don't even know whether the pants were packed for the holiday, bought in Portugal or taken over there by a family member or friend. They were staying at Praia da Luz for over four months, obviously they had a change of clothes other than their holiday packing.

This is just going round in circles, not leading anywhere. I can't waste any more time on a futile exercise, guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I disagree. It is a theory that fits with the dogs' findings. It is NOT pure invention. A child died in that apartment. Clothes belonging to Kate and Madeleine were found to be contaminated with cadaver odour. Kate had bruise marks on her wrists. None of this is subjective interpretation, it's fact.
A tragic accident or worse, a fit of uncontrollable temper makes more sense to me than all the MI5 conspiracy and hints of paedophilia. I've examined all the theories and this one makes the most sense. It's only going round in circles in YOUR head because you have this fixed idea as to what happened and every other theory is just nonsense to you. That's okay by me. That's your prerogative. I certainly don't want you to 'waste' any more time on me .My ego can take the 'loss.' ( ! ) However I'm entitled to my opinion and as you say, let's agree to disagree.

by MayMuse 27.08.16 21:50

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.
In the interest of clarity, would you be so kind as to post a link/s to where Kate McCann's mother made this claim.

Not that I believe it for one second - apart from the extremely unlikely event of her wearing such items of clothing for attending a death during her course of work, the mere suggestion that she took cuddlecat to work is risible at best.

Many articles were "whooshed" however I recall reading several "explanations" whereby not only Kate's mother was mentioned, Kate herself and her sister in law in regards to the "scent of death"on her clothes ( originally jeans I think which we now know as the checked trousers) I think some articles were published in Portugal and then translated to the UK. Whether these hold any "substance", it is interesting the excuses mirror the "rotting meat"? There has been no rebuttal of these other than "ask the dogs" Sandra. so, if this is a "myth" somewhat like "Chinese whispers", why the need to "explain" it away?
I cannot provide you with a direct link at the moment ( maybe try google) as previously stated many media reports/ articles were whooshed, mainly those not in a "favourable" light!
No smoke without fire IMHO

An example Link whooshed Kate tells of nightmare Daily Mail ( journalist Lori Campbell PDL) found here http://www.mccannfiles.com/id16.html
Half way down.

by worriedmum 27.08.16 21:59

I have said this before, but the 'transference' of cadaver odour theory should surely mean that everything that came in contact with anything contaminated would then spread it endlessly-wouldn't it?

by MayMuse 27.08.16 22:01

Verdi wrote:
Doug D wrote:
If KM’s ‘black & whites’ had gone missing, they would have been missed straight away.

Sorry, I'm not with you - missed by who?

I think Doug D may be referring to the fact that the checkered trousers have had much "publicity" i.e photo shoots. Perhaps it's "tongue in cheek"?
Could be wrong but that's how it reads to me. winkwink

Certainly they have played a great part in the "marketing" ploy!

by Guest 28.08.16 0:09

worriedmum wrote:I have said this before, but the 'transference' of cadaver odour theory should surely mean that everything that came in contact with anything contaminated would then spread it endlessly-wouldn't it?

Yup!

by Verdi 28.08.16 0:12

MayMuse wrote:
I cannot provide you with a direct link at the moment ( maybe try google) as previously stated many media reports/ articles were whooshed, mainly those not in a "favourable" light!

Much as I thought - no link to a direct quote. I will hold the subject in abeyance until such times as someone can come up with a direct quote.

by Verdi 28.08.16 0:13

MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Doug D wrote:
If KM’s ‘black & whites’ had gone missing, they would have been missed straight away.

Sorry, I'm not with you - missed by who?
I think Doug D may be referring to the fact that the checkered trousers have had much "publicity" i.e photo shoots. Perhaps it's "tongue in cheek"?
Could be wrong but that's how it reads to me.
Certainly they have played a great part in the "marketing" ploy!

Hopefully Doug D will answer for himself when he has a moment.

by MayMuse 28.08.16 0:22

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
I cannot provide you with a direct link at the moment ( maybe try google) as previously stated many media reports/ articles were whooshed, mainly those not in a "favourable" light!
Much as I thought - no link to a direct quote. I will hold the subject in abeyance until such times as someone can come up with a direct quote.

Wow, are you kidding? How many years have articles been shoved down our throats purporting so many "stories". You act like a know it all and turn your nose at anything anyone else offers in this debate for truth or indeed if they repeat something heard or God forbid they have an opinion of their own. You want links go find them yourself, they have been whooshed and not by me!!!!!!!! The link provided is the McCannfiles copy of media articles, read them and you will soon see what Kate and others say!
You cannot suggest here that you have not heard those sayings before and yet pounce on me like I've committed a crime. Please do not keep on about "evidence", cos along with that are the "suggestions" of what may have happened or may not have happened that is how you can achieve some form of coherent and conducive answers.
Seeing your comments to others also I have thought if you like to antagonise for a reaction, well here is mine now!

by Verdi 28.08.16 0:29

MayMuse wrote:Wow, are you kidding?

No MayMuse, I'm not.

You are of course right - you are a liberty to think what you like.

However it is helpful if someone makes a claim that they can back it up with an accredited source. Otherwise it has no merit.

by MayMuse 28.08.16 0:41

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Wow, are you kidding?
No MayMuse, I'm not.

You are of course right - you are a liberty to think what you like

Well you should be! The links were whooshed not sure what part of that is not clear? I have provided as close to what is from the McCannfiles for you, did you read it? I do not have the time to search now for others but you can of course research yourself for the answers you seek.
Good day!
Oh and for the record I do not believe the clothes were transference, I believe in direct contact.
All of course my own opinions!

Edit to your edit, I have made NO such claim, read my first comment on " I recall reading articles"
Of which I provided as an example from the McCannfiles those whooshed!

by Verdi 28.08.16 0:59

MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Wow, are you kidding?
No MayMuse, I'm not.

You are of course right - you are a liberty to think what you like
Well you should be! The links were whooshed not sure what part of that is not clear? I have provided as close to what is from the McCannfiles for you, did you read it? I do not have the time to search now for others but you can of course research yourself for the answers you seek.
Good day!
Oh and for the record I do not believe the clothes were transference, I believe in direct contact.
All of course my own opinions!

Edit to your edit, I have made NO such claim, read my first comment on " I recall reading articles"
Of which I provided as an example from the McCannfiles those whooshed!

As I said up-page, as far as I recall the claim about Kate McCann's clothing being contaminated with cadavar scent during the course of her work was by way of the Portuguese media which was repeated by the UK press. You are confirming my thoughts so I'm at a loss to understand why you are taking offense.

As for press articles being whooshed - I think that's a bit far fetched. In this particular instance it would be to the McCanns advantage to explain away the contaminated clothing so why whoosh? Agreed maybe some contentious press reports may have been removed from the internet but I think that more likely for legal reasons rather than anything else. Or maybe just because?

Please don't trouble yourself further.

by MayMuse 28.08.16 1:26

For reference, note "jeans" (Kate's comment) and "scent of death" friends comment, as per Link provided originally.

Kate tells of nightmare [color:efc6=000000]Daily Mirror

Lori Campbell In Praia Da Luz
09/09/2007

Shell-shocked Kate McCann has given a dramatic, impassioned interview to the Sunday Mirror to denounce claims that she killed her own daughter.

Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: "They want me to lie - I'm being framed.

"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."

Kate was speaking on Friday morning - after her first police interrogation this week, but before police officially classed her a suspect in her daughter Madeleine's disappearance.

And she addressed head-on the extraordinary allegation that she accidentally killed Madeleine, then hid the body and engaged in a monumental cover-up to pretend she had been abducted.

Furious at the astounding claims, Kate, 39, said of the police: "They are basically saying, 'If you confess Madeleine had an accident, and that I panicked and hid the body in a bag for a month then got rid of it in a hire car, I'd get two or three years' suspended sentence.'

"I was even told, 'Think about it - Gerry would even be able to work again'. I was told that I could say I was stressed and I sedated Madeleine and it could be the best option for me. It is ridiculous. The worst nightmare".

Devout Catholic Kate revealed that the Portuguese police have even taken her Bible away - in the apparent belief that a crumpled page from it relating to a dead child indicates a guilty conscience.

Kate said: "One of the pieces of evidence is that a page from a passage in Samuel about having to tell a man his child is dead is crumpled - so I must have been reading it.

"I mean how ridiculous is that? My faith is sorely tested."

Under Portuguese law, she can say no more until her suspect status is lifted - making her interview with us her only and final comment on the mind-boggling police allegations.

Kate spoke to the Sunday Mirror as she was being hauled back in for her second quizzing on Friday morning.

Later on Friday, she was officially classed a suspect - as was her husband Gerry, in the early hours of yesterday morning.

The couple have dutifully never discussed the police investigation until now, in accordance with Portuguese law - but besieged Kate felt that she had no option but to speak out.

Police offered the "confession" deal through her lawyer before Friday's police interview. Breaking down in tears, the GP from Rothley, Leics, said defiantly: "They're telling my lawyer this could be the best option for me and I was advised that, if I deny it, I'm now at the point of no return. But I will never lie for them."

She said her desire not to give in to police pressure was fuelled by the McCanns' burning desire for Madeleine to be found. "And I think, 'Sod us, what about Madeleine? This would mean people stop looking for her'." She added: "We were under 24-hour constant scrutiny after Madeleine was taken. Where would I have hidden a body? We had no vehicle even then."

Meanwhile, the Sunday Mirror has learned that Kate and Gerry, a surgeon, have made a pact not to cry in front of Portuguese police - however upsetting the questions they face.

"They have promised each other that they will not let the police break them," a friend said. "No matter how intolerable the questioning, they will maintain their resolve."

The police case against Kate and Gerry revolves around claims that traces of Madeleine's DNA were found in a Renault Scenic car hired for the McCanns by a representative of holiday firm Mark Warner 25 days after their daughter's disappearance.

Kate said: "The police are going to say they have found bodily fluids from Madeleine in the car. It's impossible. We hired the car three-and-a-half weeks later."

In fact, when Kate was grilled for the second time, police repeatedly told her they had found blood in the Renault car but wouldn't say it was Madeleine's.

Sources close to the family say that, if Madeleine's DNA was in the car, it would be quite possible the traces got there from Madeleine's clothes and toys which the McCann twins Sean and Amelie had been playing with.

Her Dna would also be on her parents' clothes from where they cuddled and played with her. Kate said: "Five weeks ago, they took away all our clothes, items people had sent out for us."

A police dog sniffed out traces of corpses on Kate's clothes, it is said. "Apparently the dog started barking at my jeans and in the apartment," said Kate.

Friends have pointed out that GP Kate was present at several deaths before she went away on holiday.

"It was us who instigated and pushed for the searches," said exasperated Kate. "Would we have done that if we had something to hide? The British police have been great, they are totally behind us."

But she can no longer contain her fury at the Portuguese police's behaviour.

Kate fears the cost of the inquiry means police in Praia da Luz are anxious to get it over as soon as possible. "The Portuguese police are running out of budget for this investigation and want it to end," she said. "The British have been paying."

The McCanns' relations are at their side, but Kate fears for her 67-year-old dad Brian Healy, who suffers from Parkinson's. "This is so hard on them," she said.

So fearful are the McCanns that they are being framed they got a message through to Gordon Brown's office on Friday about the cruel twist of events.

It is believed a British consular official contacted police in Portugal to protest at the confession deal being put to Kate.

The McCanns have also asked if the American FBI could undertake a review of the case - but have been told it won't be possible.

Kate McCann gave this interview to The Sunday Mirror on Friday morning, hours before being made an arguida - official suspect - in the Madeleine inquiry.

by Verdi 28.08.16 13:20

What a scandalous piece of journalistic propaganda - it's got Clarence Mitchell written all over it. This, the woman who assisted the orchestrated campaign to implicate Robert Murat !?!

The UK press should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves allowing this degree of misinformation and sensationalism to go to print. Is there no responsible body in control?

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Should Goncalo Amaral now abandon the PJ theory that Madeleine died AFTER 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007?