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

In the interest of clarity..

Catriona Baker:  Childcare Worker - witness statement 6th May 2007

Children between the age of 4 months and 1 year are assigned to the "Baby Club" – the service operates next to the Ocean Club's main reception; for children between the age of 1 and 2 - "Toddler" - this service is located in a building close to the Tapas restaurant; for children between the age of 3 and 5 - "Mini" - this service is equally located next to the Ocean Club's main reception; and last, for children between the age of 6 and 9 and between the age of 10 and 13 - "Junior Kids" - the service operates in a space located near the Millennium restaurant.

The operating hours of these four services is from 09H00 to 12H30, in the morning, and from 14H30 to 17H30, in the afternoon.

She adds that there is another service that is offered during dinner time called "Dining Out Service", which is also located above the Ocean Club's main reception, and operates from 19H30 until 23H30.

@Michael99 - you've made me sit up in my seat this morning with your last post. Have you got first hand knowledge on the creche locations? 

I have believed for a while that the creche locations may well not be as we have been led to believe from the statements. If you check in the thread 'creche signatures revisited' at the top of page 10, I posted a MarkWarner map of the Ocean Club resort (from the time period in question) - you will see that the 'baby and toddler 1' clubs are shown located in the end property in the row of flats immediately below the Waterside Garden's 2 tennis courts (overlooking the courts and if I remember correctly, if you google map this location, there is a restaurant below which opens onto the road on the opposite side of the row of properties - can't check on this small tablet). Again from memory, the flats themselves are accessed via flights of stairs from the tennis court side. Is this the location you are describing in your post? I remember checking that there was a way through between the courts and the tented creche, which accesses the small parking area/row of flats via a tall gate. 

On the same map, 'toddlers 2' and the 'minis' are both shown as being located in the tented creche next to the tennis courts - this ties in with marketing photos from the time which clearly show 'mini' aged children in the tented creche.

If you have first hand knowledge or access to anyone who could confirm/discount the club locations, including the night creche, during the first week in May 2007, it would be huge. I may well be entirely wrong but that's irrelevant - the important thing is getting to the truth.

Thanks for your post.

@Verdi - are we now taking what Cat Baker stated as gospel?

skyrocket wrote:@Verdi - are we now taking what Cat Baker stated as gospel?

@skyrocket - I can't answer for the collective 'we' but personally speaking no, by opinion as regards Catriona Baker's reliability as a witness remains intact.  However, I think it would be extremely foolish to mislead or lie about something that could be so easily checked.

Besides, what could be gained by Baker, or anyone else for that matter, re-locating the childcare accommodation in her statement?

@Verdi - I agree with you that it seems on the surface highly unlikely, as you say not least because you would think the locations should be 100% verifiable. The only reason I can suggest for deception (if in fact there was any) is that there was some need to have MB's club and the night creche separated from the Waterside Garden's site of blocks 4 & 5 and the tapas area. However, I acknowledge it would be heck of an involved deception, with many people involved.

A number of statements repeat verbatim that the mini/baby clubs and night creche were in the the same building as the main OC reception - but there is discrepancy in the actual room descriptions/locations and in the amount of contact the baby club nanny's had with both the minis children and parents.

Another point that niggles is the strange logistics of MW building (after their OC purchase in 05/06) and fitting out a large, dedicated creche building with direct access to outdoor areas for activities and high tea next to the tapas bar, only to locate the minis/babies 10 minutes walk away in the 'office area' with the need to frog march/push the children back up to the tapas area every tea time. And what of the MW site map; website description; and creche photos from 06/07 - all clearly showing the minis in the tented creche?

@Michael99's comment regarding their knowledge of the night creche location (in the same flat as the baby/toddler1 clubs are shown on the map and not as described in statements ) was very interesting - although my inquiry about where the info came from hasn't been responded to yet.

Just been re reading Dr Martin Robert's excellent article re Madeleine's
pyjamas with the later incisive comments from Tania ( Hobs) . A couple of thoughts: It seems pretty clear ( to me anyway ) that the whole pyjama saga was a ploy to enforce the scenario of  Madeleine's abduction from her bed. Since the only items of clothing where  cadaver 'odour' was detected were (1) ) Kate's check trousers and (2) a red t shirt belonging presumably to Maddie and(3)  on Cuddle Cat,  am I correct in thinking that the three  must be somehow connected? A T shirt is not night time wear and since her parents had taken several pairs of pyjamas for the week's holiday ( as you do ) I can't think that Madeleine would be using day wear for bed. What could the scenario be that has Madeleine wearing solely a red T shirt and presumably clutching Cuddle cat during the daytime hours that resulted in her death? When was Kate wearing her check pants? If the death occurred during daylight hours  the  evening negligence cover up theory flies out of the window. Added to all this,  the fact that the T shirt was removed post death ( to avoid I.D.?) just leads to ever more questions. Just a couple of musings.

kaz wrote:Just been re reading Dr Martin Robert's excellent article re Madeleine's
pyjamas with the later incisive comments from Tania ( Hobs) . A couple of thoughts: It seems pretty clear ( to me anyway ) that the whole pyjama saga was a ploy to enforce the scenario of  Madeleine's abduction from her bed. Since the only items of clothing where  cadaver 'odour' was detected were (1) ) Kate's check trousers and (2) a red t shirt belonging presumably to Maddie and(3)  on Cuddle Cat,  am I correct in thinking that the three  must be somehow connected? A T shirt is not night time wear and since her parents had taken several pairs of pyjamas for the week's holiday ( as you do ) I can't think that Madeleine would be using day wear for bed. What could the scenario be that has Madeleine wearing solely a red T shirt and presumably clutching Cuddle cat during the daytime hours that resulted in her death? When was Kate wearing her check pants? If the death occurred during daylight hours  the  evening negligence cover up theory flies out of the window. Added to all this,  the fact that the T shirt was removed post death ( to avoid I.D.?) just leads to ever more questions. Just a couple of musings.

I've been trying to imagine a scenario where the above 'facts; would fit, painful as it is.
The more I think about it the more I am convinced that Madeleine was killed as a result of Kate's loss of temper. It must have been very difficult to deal with three small children as they awoke from the previous night's sleep. Madeleine maybe was the first to awaken , remove her nightwear  and begin to dress herself in a red T shirt ( cadaver odour )  . Meanwhile her mother would be attending  to the younger children ( wearing the check trousers ) . Was Madeleine being mischievous? Mucking about like any normal three year old would? Was she annoying her mother ?  Maybe a sharp slap escalated and  she fell and hit her head  . Was Gerry still  in bed and had to  restrain Kate ( wrist marks )  but too late ? Was this the morning after Kate slept alone obviously annoyed with her husband? Was this the morning that breakfast with their friends stopped? Was Madeleine's body first concealed behind the sofa and later in the wardrobe to prevent the younger children from seeing it? ( cadaver odour present in both places )
The 'accident' happened during daylight hours so why conceal it as a charge of 'negligence' wouldn't have been  appropriate? Because Madeleine bore the marks of her mother's earlier loss of temper?
Why would their friends help cover it up by going along with the official story? Simply because they understood that it WAS an accident ..................a momentary loss of control. I'm not condoning this in any shape or form by the way , just trying to understand the attitude.
How could the parents appear almost happy mere days after the 'abduction?' That's just not 'normal.' They would possibly  have access to Prozac or some other mood altering drugs and this could well be the answer to their strangely inappropriate upbeat appearances.
Why did the 'cover up' gain official backing? Maybe again it was the hugely lucrative drug company aspect that influenced it . The government has huge financial dealings with these companies.  As a heart consultant Gerry would be in a very good position to have a professional opinion on which drugs were effective or not . Again there's the Masonic thing , the Boys' Club where we all look after each other no matter what.
I'm convinced it happened earlier on in the week which gave them time to create their stories but all this is TOTAL SUPPOSITION on my part and may well be completely off the mark. Any comments which can totally demolish it are VERY  welcome!

I can't think of any of my friends (even VERY best friend) who would cover up for me knowing that I had 'killed' my child in a fit of temper.
JohnyT

I believe ,the dog handler said that the odour was around that corner of room ,where it sometimes accumulates. Don't think he felt it was inside cupboard .just an old memory ,does anyone else recall ?joyce1938

One can conjure up any speculative scenario in order to excite the imagination in the absence of conclusive evidence.  Best to stick to evidenced material and plausible intelligence rather than drifting into the realms of fantasy, as tempting as it might be.

One thing is for sure, Madeleine disappeared sometime between arriving at the Ocean Club on Saturday 28th April 2007 and the following Thursday night.  Wherever personal feelings take you on this journey, one thing can't be denied - the group of friends were/are complicit in the intrigue.  This simple fact is evidenced by so many factors I don't know where to begin.

I guess it all depends on the nature of Madeleine's fate and how the group and the UK establishment are embroiled in the conspiracy.  If the group of friends were not directly involved, the case would have been concluded within days/weeks/months following Kate McCann's documented alert at approximately 10:00 pm on the 3rd May 2007.

Hasn't anyone ever come across a situation whereby a parent is sexually abusing their own child but the grandparent turns a blind eye?  I have.  Not saying this happened here but it has to be accepted that human nature is anything but straightforward.  You can't just assume this that and the other just to suit your own sense of decency and/or sensitivity.

Verdi wrote:One can conjure up any speculative scenario in order to excite the imagination in the absence of conclusive evidence.  Best to stick to evidenced material and plausible intelligence rather than drifting into the realms of fantasy, as tempting as it might be.

That's exactly what I thought I WAS doing.
The dogs' findings are evidence.................... free from human emotional interference, subjective interpretation  and corruption. 'Plausible intelligence' sounds good but is it? Plausible to who? Certainly not everyone or else the discussions/ disagreements  on here wouldn't have continued for so long. There may well be other unsavoury factors related to this case but I'm not sure that 'plausible intelligence' is going to reveal it . Apart from the hard evidence of the dogs we have very little to go on . Agreed, MY friends wouldn't cover up my guilt either but these aren't OUR friends. They are the McCanns'  friends , mainly doctors who have to take the emotion out of situations and are used to making  cold blooded decisions. If it was a sudden loss of temper  leading to  an accident ( and let's face it , this would be the story related to their friends) they might just agree on a way forward. Let's face it, it's worked.
I just wonder if we're making something originally uncomplicated into something very complicated indeed. Just a thought.

Many many people just assume @verdi especially as what we have been told has not been the whole truth. The scenario opens up conjecture and speculation using evidence and peoples own minds; it's the nature of people.
What is evident, as we know, is that many are trying to seek the truth for Madeleine  so justice can be served (if ever) and to do this many "speculations" have been mulled over as can be seen all over the Internet and some. 
Whilst evidence needs to be the main basis of investigating, it will not stop people from trying to surmise a "theory",  and let's face it that is exactly what the McCanns have done in the hope that the world would "swallow" it and it appears much "evidence" is not wholly being followed by OG either with tales of "burglars" without evidence or indeed exercising any intelligence when there is zero proof of anyone other than the McCanns and friends entering and exiting 5a! 

@kaz I'm not convinced It was Madeleine's t-shirt or that she wore it. I believe it was Sean's and there are photos of him wearing it, it is by all accounts a "boys" red t-shirt depicting trains or planes. I believe it may have been by the "body" long enough to be contaminated by cadaver odour. 

Just my thoughts.

JohnyT wrote:I can't think of any of my friends (even VERY best friend) who would cover up for me knowing that I had 'killed' my child in a fit of temper.
JohnyT

There are many who do just that, unfortunately. 
OT...look up Victoria Martens, a terrible act just recently of a 10 year old girl injected with Meth, raped and brutally murdered and dismembered! Her Mother was party to the whole thing!?
Absolutely heart breaking for that poor girl.

kaz wrote: 'Plausible intelligence' sounds good but is it? Plausible to who?

Okay, I should have stuck with 'informed' intelligence.  I was making allowances for a modicum of poetic licence.

MayMuse wrote:Many many people just assume @verdi especially as what we have been told has not been the whole truth. The scenario opens up conjecture and speculation using evidence and peoples own minds; it's the nature of people.

Yes I agree, providing theorizing is within the limits of realism.  I just feel that although, as you rightly say, this is all about justice for Madeleine McCann - it doesn't help by building an elaborate picture of what may have been without a scrap of evidence to use as a foundation.  I leave that area of expertise to the professionals - Operation Grange.

Thank goodness we are all of different minds, what a boring world it would otherwise be.

@kaz I'm not convinced It was Madeleine's t-shirt or that she wore it. I believe it was Sean's and there are photos of him wearing it, it is by all accounts a "boys" red t-shirt depicting trains or planes. I believe it may have been by the "body" long enough to be contaminated by cadaver odour. 

Okay, but why JUST the T shirt ? Again just casting out my nets based on the dogs' evidence of cadaver odour on the red shirt, is it possible that Madeleine was being deliberately annoying  as three year olds do and putting her brother's top  on instead of her own? It's plausible, yes, but not sure if it qualifies as 'plausible evidence.' It's certainly 'realistic.'

Kaz,
 
Similar background thoughts to your own, although as there is no evidence as to whether an act of temper or just losing it upon discovery, either on return or getting up in the morning, I suppose technically it’s not ‘plausibly based’.
 
 The bruising is clearly not consistent with:
 
‘For the first time I noticed the ugly purple, blue and black bruises on the sides of my hands, wrists and forearms. I was shocked. Gerry reminded me of how I’d been banging my clenched fists on the veranda railing and the apartment walls the night before. I could only vaguely remember it.’  (madeleine)
 
but more with restraint.
 
Hitting walls in anger or frustration generally leads to knuckle/hand injuries, not wrists and forearms.
 
Verdi asks for ‘theorizing (is) within the limits of realism’, so if we allow the bruising to be evidence of restraint (many do not), we need to be looking for possibilities requiring such restraint.
 
The dogs we have actually seen on video, but what should be the pretty much routine follow up with the forensic stuff is just shambolic, to such an extent that it seems deliberately so.

kaz wrote:

@kaz I'm not convinced It was Madeleine's t-shirt or that she wore it. I believe it was Sean's and there are photos of him wearing it, it is by all accounts a "boys" red t-shirt depicting trains or planes. I believe it may have been by the "body" long enough to be contaminated by cadaver odour. 

Okay, but why JUST the T shirt ? Again just casting out my nets based on the dogs' evidence of cadaver odour on the red shirt, is it possible that Madeleine was being deliberately annoying  as three year olds do and putting her brother's top  on instead of her own? It's plausible, yes, but not sure if it qualifies as 'plausible evidence.' It's certainly 'realistic.'

I think they may have just not got rid of all the right clothes.

Roxyroo wrote:

I think they may have just not got rid of all the right clothes.

No, they didn't get rid of ' all the right clothes.' They left incriminating evidence in the red T shirt, the check trousers and Cuddle cat. The fact that these hadn't 'disappeared' points to the fact that the dogs were one thing they hadn't thought through. Look at Gerry's face when the question,'  What about the dogs Gerry?' is asked of him. He's seething inside. He's almost defeated. They really didn't think that one through which makes the dogs' evidence even more revealing.

A porous material such as clothing or a cuddle cat, doesn't need to be in direct contact with a corpse to be contaminated - in this instance the cadavar scent was most likely by transference as opposed to direct contact.  In a death situation that needs to be concealed, nobody, even in a panic situation would be stupid enough to retain clothing that had been in direct contact with a  corpse.  Why would it occur to them to dispose of Gerald's clothing and not the wife's and it's very unlikely that Madeleine was holding cuddlecat, that scenario defies logic.  It is however quite feasible that the items identified by the dogs were inadvertently placed in the same location, albeit at a later time, as a corpse or some other material that had been in contact with a corpse at the time of, or after the event.

The interview with Sandra Felgueiras took place in November 2009, well over two years after the dogs were deployed to Praia da Luz, all the detail of the dog alerts was well documented long before - if you remember the McCanns went out of their way to discredit dogs trained to assist in a criminal investigation.  I think Gerald's disgust was more to do with being interviewed without pre-scripting, put on the spot so to speak, rather than a guilt complex.

I can accept transference on the t-shirt, whether I believe that or not I'm not sure, but not Kate's trousers etc. 



Was the "spare" cot ever found? 
You know the one the maid said she saw in the McCanns bedroom?

Verdi wrote:A porous material such as clothing or a cuddle cat, doesn't need to be in direct contact with a corpse to be contaminated - in this instance the cadavar scent was most likely by transference as opposed to direct contact.  In a death situation that needs to be concealed, nobody, even in a panic situation would be stupid enough to retain clothing that had been in direct contact with a  corpse.  Why would it occur to them to dispose of Gerald's clothing and not the wife's and it's very unlikely that Madeleine was holding cuddlecat, that scenario defies logic.  It is however quite feasible that the items identified by the dogs were inadvertently placed in the same location, albeit at a later time, as a corpse or some other material that had been in contact with a corpse at the time of, or after the event.

The interview with Sandra Felgueiras took place in November 2009, well over two years after the dogs were deployed to Praia da Luz, all the detail of the dog alerts was well documented long before - if you remember the McCanns went out of their way to discredit dogs trained to assist in a criminal investigation.  I think Gerald's disgust was more to do with being interviewed without pre-scripting, put on the spot so to speak, rather than a guilt complex.

Not sure how you can state this as confidently as you have. Why a pair of check trousers , a red T shirt and a toy should be the sole objects of transference is as unlikely to me as the direct contamination is to you. Why the three items and ONLY those items would be placed behind the sofa or possibly in the wardrobe for transference to occur doesn't ring true to me. It's also very likely that Madeleine WOULD  be clutching her  Cuddle Cat ESPECIALLY during  a frightening episode. As I said earlier the McCanns thought of nearly everything and had each angle 'covered' but who ever imagined  the dogs would be brought in? I doubt if it entered their frazzled brains . It's quite possible that Gerry was still in bed when it all began to kick off early that morning when he had to intervene .Who's to say he was wearing anything? Maybe like many people, he sleeps in the buff.
I didn't say that Gerry's reaction was one of guilt. I wrote: On being asked the question, '' And what about the dogs Gerry?' '' He's seething inside. He's almost defeated. They really didn't think that one through which makes the dogs' evidence even more revealing.''

My understanding is that there was a t-shirt ( also contaminated) they believed belonged to Kate, a pale grey one or maybe dirty white, I think? 


Stand to be corrected.

MayMuse wrote:My understanding is that there was a t-shirt ( also contaminated) they believed belonged to Kate, a pale grey one or maybe dirty white, I think? 


Stand to be corrected.

You're correct. TWO items of Kate's clothes. Trousers and top. The files actually state that the child's item was Madeleine's but it does seem more likely that it was her brother's as you said previously.

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.

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.