Sofa + accident = death, really?

by Guest 13.10.11 8:46

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If we look closely at the position of the sofa in the living room under the side window, what we can see is how tightly close together the furniture was in that area. It is said that usually there is a gap behind the sofa, to allow the curtains to be shut at night. But Gerry had pushed it closer to the wall to stop the children dropping their toys behind it. Either way, the small gap or no gap, could not have caused a nearly 4 year old child to have some kind of accident resulting in blood found on the floor, behind the sofa. I'm sorry, but that's impossible. There must have been side tables either side of the sofa originally, even though there is only one seen in this diagram, but no one would have left that corner empty, when it would have needed a side table. Which would make it virtually impossible for any child to crawl behind it either, even if it had been away from the wall wide enough for them to fit. Which we know it was not.

Therefore my conclusions are, based on the photographic evidence available, there could not have been an accident in that area.

by Guest 13.10.11 9:14

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Is the bottom picture how the McCann's left the apartment? or was it a result of a GNR/PJ search?

Has someone moved the second sofa to reach that window to inspect it? Not much room to manoeuvre there by the looks of things.

by Guest 13.10.11 9:27

Taken from the Portuguese forensic report, samples collected on the 4th and 5th of August 2007.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

1A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
1B. Stain on the floor recovered with swab, with distilled water.
2A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
2B. Stain on the floor recovered with a swab, with distilled water.
3A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
3B. Stain on the floor recovered with a swab, with distilled water.
4A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
4B. Stain on the floor recovered with a swab, with distilled water.
5A. Stain on the wall with a dry swab.
5B. Stain on the wall recovered with a swab with distilled water.
6A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
6B. Stain on the wall recovered with a swab with distilled water.
7A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
7B. Stain on the wall recovered with a swab with distilled water.
8A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
8B. Stain on the wall recovered with a swab with distilled water.
9A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
9B. Stain on the wall recovered with a swab with distilled water.
10A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
10B. Stain on the wall recovered with a swab with distilled water.
11A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
11B. Stain on the wall recovered with a swab with distilled water.
12A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
12B. Stain on the wall recovered with a swab with distilled water.
13A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
13B. Stain on the wall recovered with a swab with distilled water.
14A. Stain on the back of a sofa recovered with a dry swab.
14B. Stain on the back of a sofa recovered with a swab with distilled water.
15A. Stain on the back of a sofa recovered with a dry swab.
15B Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with swab with distilled water
16. Blue curtain
16. Blue curtain.
16B. White curtain behind blue curtain and armband.

by Guest 13.10.11 9:30

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 13.10.11 9:42

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Shouldn't these indicators be closer together for a 'sudden' accident?

by BertySodbuster 13.10.11 9:45

So, what are you saying?
That Madeleine didn't die behind the sofa as Snr Amaral believes?
That the evidence is wrong?
I think you'll find that's what the pro's have been saying all along.

by Guest 13.10.11 9:46

This one has arrows pointing to a more specific area. Not all over. Not running all the way down the back of the sofa. But more specifically right at the bottom and one spot at the top.

Do you still think there was an accident here?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 13.10.11 9:57

BertySodbuster wrote:So, what are you saying?
That Madeleine didn't die behind the sofa as Snr Amaral believes?
That the evidence is wrong?
I think you'll find that's what the pro's have been saying all along.

No. The pro's believe everything was planted. What I am saying is, a child on the sofa, let's say jumping up and down, over excited, who slips and bangs her head on the window ledge, would fall onto the sofa, not behind it. Especially when the sofa is up against the wall.

Maybe Goncalo Amaral was offering them a parachute, suggesting it was some kind of accident? Who knows?

But what I see in these photos, does not paint the official theory of an accident on the sofa.

by Guest 13.10.11 10:05

From Martin Grime's report.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog
was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas
on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was
in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely
presence of human blood.

OK, so what we have here is evidence that Keela identified the hem of the blue curtain, behind the sofa, for blood.

Do you really think that blood can head up from off the seat of the sofa, then over the back of the sofa and end up on the floor behind the sofa?

by Guest 13.10.11 10:14

We have a new poster on here, sorry I've forgotten your name, but if you see this post I would love to hear from you on this subject. You mentioned that you were previously a Paramedic.

In an accident, unless you have severed an artery, it can take 30 seconds + for an injury to start bleeding. I have been in two such accidents and both times there was this short delay.

If a child had fallen onto the seat of the sofa, the loss of blood would start at that point. If the blow to the head had been so violent to create spatter, it would have hit the area of the curtain in line with the window ledge or above and all over the top of the sofa maybe. Not behind the sofa.

by agent0060 13.10.11 10:40

Goncalol said Madeleine McCann died from accidentally falling behind the sofa in the living room of the apartment. That couch had been moved when the alarm over the alleged disappearance was raised. I think that someone discovered the body, concealed it, cleaned everything up and pushed the sofa to the window." Why are you changing what he said? You are rubbishing his thesis. Why?

by dragonfly 13.10.11 10:59

Stella wrote:We have a new poster on here, sorry I've forgotten your name, but if you see this post I would love to hear from you on this subject. You mentioned that you were previously a Paramedic.

In an accident, unless you have severed an artery, it can take 30 seconds + for an injury to start bleeding. I have been in two such accidents and both times there was this short delay.

If a child had fallen onto the seat of the sofa, the loss of blood would start at that point. If the blow to the head had been so violent to create spatter, it would have hit the area of the curtain in line with the window ledge or above and all over the top of the sofa maybe. Not behind the sofa.

Where do you get your information from? I can only assume you go by your own beliefs and experiences , Paper cuts bleed straight away for me , I don't wait half a minute for blood to come out and that is not a severe artery , as for comment about there must of been a side table why?

by Gillyspot 13.10.11 11:47

Personally I think that if there was enough room for the curtains to move easily then there is enough room for a small child to fall down the back of the sofa.

by Invinoveritas 13.10.11 13:10

Stella wrote:We have a new poster on here, sorry I've forgotten your name, but if you see this post I would love to hear from you on this subject. You mentioned that you were previously a Paramedic.

In an accident, unless you have severed an artery, it can take 30 seconds + for an injury to start bleeding. I have been in two such accidents and both times there was this short delay.

If a child had fallen onto the seat of the sofa, the loss of blood would start at that point. If the blow to the head had been so violent to create spatter, it would have hit the area of the curtain in line with the window ledge or above and all over the top of the sofa maybe. Not behind the sofa.

Stella, I´m not sure whether you mean me with being a Para-Medic, I did mention yesterday on another thread in reply to a posting by tigger that I have worked as such (30years ago), yes, depending on the injury it can take a while until bleeding starts when compared to arterial bleeding which of course is under pressure. To the blood spots: what strikes me is that the spots on the wall are in the right-hand corner of the room where the side-table is in the photo but the blood spots on the sofa are at the opposite end of the sofa (dabs from fingers moving the sofa?), I can´t atm remember which curtains had blood stains on them, left or right?

by Smokeandmirrors 13.10.11 13:22

That sofa could have been in any position in that room before the police arrived. It could easily have been moved on a tiled floor, and legitimately moved several times to get to a lost item. Also, if it had been moved forward so that the children couldn't climb onto the window ledge, and Madeleine had gone behind it, picked a scab on her knee for example, small amounts of her blood could have been around that area, transferred from her fingers, without any suspicious circumstances whatsoever. A child could also sneeze during a minor nosebleed (the blood irritating/tickling the inside of their nose) and cause some sort of a spray on fabric or a wall again perfectly innocent. Remember that case involving Billy Jo Jenkins? This blood patterning on her stepfathers clothing was key to the case, it wasn't 100% determinable.

What I am trying to say, is that whilst Amarals theory is reasonable of what could have possibly happened, and as none of us were there that night we don't actually know, these elements are not in themself proof of anything. They would not be suspicious in any way shape or form if Madeleine had not vanished, and her vanishing does not automatically make those things suspicious. Does that make sense?

I do believe the theory that she woke up, heard something outside and climbed onto the sofa to see, fell and suffered a fatal injury is as reasonable as any put forward to date, and I see no reason whatsoever why Amaral and others would wish to frame the parents at the very real threat to their own career and reputation, it just doesn't work for me.

It also doesn't work for me that a fall would be anything to need to conceal, a child could just as easily awaken in the night when the parents are fast asleep in the next room, climb onto some furniture and fall, a parent does not need to be absent for an accident to happen. An accident can happen in any number of ways whilst the parent is alert and only a few feet away.

Where the answer lies IMHO, is the lack of co-operation, odd behaviours, contradictions, extraordinary support and financial contributions AND costs, two criminally convicted private investigators, Clarence, planning events months in advance etc. The need by the Tapas to control the events following 3rd May as far as was/is possible, virtually dictating the terms, only answering questions in interviews that had been pre-submitted and all the rest of it, all make me feel that they know what happened and as there is nothing to support an abduction theory that stands up to scrutiny I think it perfectly reasonable to back the Portugese police.

The big mistake was not scrutinising the parents and tapas bunch immediately, separating them and grilling them hard straight away. If that had been done and the police felt there was genuine consistency from the get go we wouldn't be here today I don't think.

by Guest 13.10.11 13:32

Invinoveritas wrote:
Stella wrote:We have a new poster on here, sorry I've forgotten your name, but if you see this post I would love to hear from you on this subject. You mentioned that you were previously a Paramedic.

In an accident, unless you have severed an artery, it can take 30 seconds + for an injury to start bleeding. I have been in two such accidents and both times there was this short delay.

If a child had fallen onto the seat of the sofa, the loss of blood would start at that point. If the blow to the head had been so violent to create spatter, it would have hit the area of the curtain in line with the window ledge or above and all over the top of the sofa maybe. Not behind the sofa.

Stella, I´m not sure whether you mean me with being a Para-Medic, I did mention yesterday on another thread in reply to a posting by tigger that I have worked as such (30years ago), yes, depending on the injury it can take a while until bleeding starts when compared to arterial bleeding which of course is under pressure. To the blood spots: what strikes me is that the spots on the wall are in the right-hand corner of the room where the side-table is in the photo but the blood spots on the sofa are at the opposite end of the sofa (dabs from fingers moving the sofa?), I can´t atm remember which curtains had blood stains on them, left or right?

Yes Invinoveritas, it was you who I was thinking of and thank you for responding. This is why I have some doubts about this crime scene. The area where the samples were found are in such an unusual position, it makes no sense in relation to a sudden accident. I watched a very good program once demonstrating how various violent situations, lead to all sorts of patterns of spatter. How they can tell where the person striking someone was standing, in which direction the victim was standing and fell and all sorts of other things like different weapons used, all causing a different effect. It was quite a fascinating science to study.

I don't think that part of the room had enough space to have the sofa so far away from the wall, that a child could fall down behind it. I just don't buy it. Even if by some chance there was, what was found as you quite rightly said, was at opposite ends to each other. Someone did say that death may have occurred elsewhere and at some point the body was hidden there. Now that I think would be more consistent with sliding something along the back of the sofa, pressing against both areas as indicated.

by Guest 13.10.11 13:42

Smokeandmirrors wrote:That sofa could have been in any position in that room before the police arrived. It could easily have been moved on a tiled floor, and legitimately moved several times to get to a lost item. Also, if it had been moved forward so that the children couldn't climb onto the window ledge, and Madeleine had gone behind it, picked a scab on her knee for example, small amounts of her blood could have been around that area, transferred from her fingers, without any suspicious circumstances whatsoever. A child could also sneeze during a minor nosebleed (the blood irritating/tickling the inside of their nose) and cause some sort of a spray on fabric or a wall again perfectly innocent. Remember that case involving Billy Jo Jenkins? This blood patterning on her stepfathers clothing was key to the case, it wasn't 100% determinable.
I understand what you are saying, but if forensics identified something in the blood that is only released after death, let's say cerebral fluid for instance, then all of the above we could exclude. Then taking into consideration what Eddie alerted to, the final picture is somewhat different.

What I am trying to say, is that whilst Amarals theory is reasonable of what could have possibly happened, and as none of us were there that night we don't actually know, these elements are not in themself proof of anything. They would not be suspicious in any way shape or form if Madeleine had not vanished, and her vanishing does not automatically make those things suspicious. Does that make sense?
What we also have to consider is, that what was found cannot be date stamped. We do not know if it is from the 3rd, the 2nd or even the 29th April.

I do believe the theory that she woke up, heard something outside and climbed onto the sofa to see, fell and suffered a fatal injury is as reasonable as any put forward to date, and I see no reason whatsoever why Amaral and others would wish to frame the parents at the very real threat to their own career and reputation, it just doesn't work for me.
There are many of us who believe that none of the children were ever left on their own, so for me, this is not a possibility.

It also doesn't work for me that a fall would be anything to need to conceal, AGREE a child could just as easily awaken in the night when the parents are fast asleep in the next room, climb onto some furniture and fall, a parent does not need to be absent for an accident to happen. An accident can happen in any number of ways whilst the parent is alert and only a few feet away. ABSOLUTELY

Where the answer lies IMHO, is the lack of co-operation, odd behaviours, contradictions, extraordinary support and financial contributions AND costs, two criminally convicted private investigators, Clarence, planning events months in advance etc. The need by the Tapas to control the events following 3rd May as far as was/is possible, virtually dictating the terms, only answering questions in interviews that had been pre-submitted and all the rest of it, all make me feel that they know what happened and as there is nothing to support an abduction theory that stands up to scrutiny I think it perfectly reasonable to back the Portugese police.

The big mistake was not scrutinising the parents and tapas bunch immediately, separating them and grilling them hard straight away. If that had been done and the police felt there was genuine consistency from the get go we wouldn't be here today I don't think.

by Guest 13.10.11 13:47

dragonfly wrote:Where do you get your information from? I can only assume you go by your own beliefs and experiences , Paper cuts bleed straight away for me , I don't wait half a minute for blood to come out and that is not a severe artery , as for comment about there must of been a side table why?

See picture here from OceanClub [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
notice the sofa, with a side table at each end. The person sitting in the corner of the sofa in 5a would need something to put their cup on, would they not?

by Guest 13.10.11 14:05

agent0060 wrote:Goncalol said Madeleine McCann died from accidentally falling behind the sofa in the living room of the apartment.
That's what he believes must have happened, based on what he found. It is just his opinion up until the point he was removed. He is unlikely to say, or it could also be theories x, y and z. He ulitmately went for accidental death, as it was probably easier to explain in court.

That couch had been moved when the alarm over the alleged disappearance was raised. I think that someone discovered the body, concealed it, cleaned everything up and pushed the sofa to the window.

Why are you changing what he said? You are rubbishing his thesis. Why?
I am disagreeing with him, yes, based on what we can see in those photos and other pieces of information that have since come to light, like the creche sheets and phone calls. If he had been allowed to continue with his investigation, his final analysis could be somewhat different to what he initially thought. I have the utmost respect for Goncalo Amaral, but his opinion is based on what he knew up until the point he was removed and does not take into consideration the discrepencies in the creche sheets or phone calls, which might mean death on the 28th or early hours of the 29th.

by Bebootje 13.10.11 15:13

Quote Smokeandmirrors: Where the answer lies IMHO, is the lack of co-operation, odd behaviours,
contradictions, extraordinary support and financial contributions AND
costs, two criminally convicted private investigators, Clarence,
planning events months in advance etc. The need by the Tapas to control
the events following 3rd May as far as was/is possible, virtually
dictating the terms, only answering questions in interviews that had
been pre-submitted and all the rest of it, all make me feel that they
know what happened and as there is nothing to support an abduction
theory that stands up to scrutiny I think it perfectly reasonable to
back the Portugese police.

Since I don’t trust Gerry at all I happen to do not believe anything the couple are telling us.

Gerry simply had to explain why the furniture was re arranged, which placed the sofa “accidentally” exactly on top of the
place where cadaver odour and blood was detected.I don't buy his story for sure.

But, why would have there be a side table either side of the sofa? I have been in many holliday appartments with one
sidetable simply because such appartments aren’t very big.

From the delivery note you posted I can’t see of all stains were blood vestiges or other kind of stains. It only says stains.
Can you post the lab results on those stains?

For me Amarals’ theory still stands. It is a simple conclusion: why would you re arrange furniture in that way (difficult to open and close curtains).
Then the blood and cadaver odour were found under the sofa, and voila, there is a simple explanation on why te furniture was re arranged.
And in most cases simple explanations are right.

Furthermore, there were signs of a clean-up. There must have been a fair amound of blood leaked throug the grouts under the floortile. I am not a forensic specialist who can conclude which injury belongs to a certain bloodspatter patern, but I can imagine such specialist was involved.
It isn’t in the files. What isn’t in the files either is that there were traces found that appeared to be spinal fluid (it was reported by the media at some point). It isn’t the files too.

But since snr Amaral is very certain about his accident theory, and I believe he is an analytical mind, maybe there is more evidence that supports his theory that we haven't seen yet.
Edited to change quoted by to Smokeandmirrors, not Stella

by Bebootje 13.10.11 15:37

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Where the answer lies IMHO, is the lack of co-operation, odd behaviours, contradictions, extraordinary support and financial contributions AND costs, two criminally convicted private investigators, Clarence, planning events months in advance etc. The need by the Tapas to control the events following 3rd May as far as was/is possible, virtually dictating the terms, only answering questions in interviews that had been pre-submitted and all the rest of it, all make me feel that they know what happened and as there is nothing to support an abduction theory that stands up to scrutiny I think it perfectly reasonable to back the Portugese police.

The big mistake was not scrutinising the parents and tapas bunch immediately, separating them and grilling them hard straight away. If that had been done and the police felt there was genuine consistency from the get go we wouldn't be here today I don't think.

In addition to Smokeandmirrors of where the answer lies is to look thoroughly to the moments that the daily routine was out of the ordinary. F.i. when the couple decided to have breakfast in the appartment in stead of the millenium which was in the package deal.

by Smokeandmirrors 13.10.11 16:15

I agree with your points Stella and Bebootje. There is just too much room for doubt and alternative scenarios with what we have seen from the portion of the PJ files that were released. All these weird aspects should have been hammered out in the first 48-72 hrs. They had the time to be interviewed because they were not out searching, unlike every other person in PDL.

by Guest 13.10.11 16:24

Bebootje wrote:But, why would have there be a side table either side of the sofa? I have been in many holliday appartments with one sidetable simply because such appartments aren’t very big.
There were two sofas at 90 degrees to each other, leaving a square gap in the corner. It is the ideal place for a side table. It is an ideal table for people sitting at that end of both sofas to put cups and glasses on. To have a square gap where you can see the floor with no piece of furniture there, is not the best way to sell a holiday rental. So no, I do not accept there was nothing there. It makes no sense, especially as there was one at the opposite end.

From the delivery note you posted I can’t see of all stains were blood vestiges or other kind of stains. It only says stains.
Can you post the lab results on those stains?
Will do.

For me Amarals’ theory still stands. It is a simple conclusion: why would you re arrange furniture in that way (difficult to open and close curtains). Because the person who cleaned up, subconsciously did not want anyone to look in that spot, so the mind says 'cover it up well' and over does it.
Then the blood and cadaver odour were found under the sofa, and voila, there is a simple explanation on why te furniture was re arranged. And in most cases simple explanations are right.
You see, I don't do simple. Yes blood and cadaver was found there, but it does not prove that is the spot where someone died, only that at some point, it's where a body was.

Furthermore, there were signs of a clean-up. Yes There must have been a fair amound of blood leaked throug the grouts under the floortile. Most probably I am not a forensic specialist who can conclude which injury belongs to a certain bloodspatter patern, but I can imagine such specialist was involved.
It isn’t in the files. What isn’t in the files either is that there were traces found that appeared to be spinal fluid (it was reported by the media at some point). It isn’t the files too. Yes, I remember that and there must have been a good reason to withold that information.

But since snr Amaral is very certain about his accident theory, and I believe he is an analytical mind, maybe there is more evidence that supports his theory that we haven't seen yet.
Quite possibly, but as he is still sticking with death on the 3rd, when there are inconsistencies in the creche records which started on the 29th, I believe that in the end I can imagine we will see everything differently. I just hope that day is not too far off.

by Me 13.10.11 16:27

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I agree with your points Stella and Bebootje. There is just too much room for doubt and alternative scenarios with what we have seen from the portion of the PJ files that were released. All these weird aspects should have been hammered out in the first 48-72 hrs. They had the time to be interviewed because they were not out searching, unlike every other person in PDL.

I think for all the Team’s criticism and libel about Amaral & The PJ, the real fault of the investigation was that in those early days they too easily believed the stories coming out of the Tapas crew about abduction.

That’s something the Team never mentions in their criticism of the PJ.

by Guest 13.10.11 16:29

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I agree with your points Stella and Bebootje. There is just too much room for doubt and alternative scenarios with what we have seen from the portion of the PJ files that were released. All these weird aspects should have been hammered out in the first 48-72 hrs. They had the time to be interviewed because they were not out searching, unlike every other person in PDL.

That's right SaM, they should have all been hauled in within hours of the alarm being raised. But think of the manpower that would have been needed to question the original circle of 9 all at the exact same time, plus everyone in the Tapas bar that night.