Re: PLANNING THE ABDUCTION HOAX. Was it done over four days, or four hours?

by **Jill Havern** 28.06.18 12:14

According to the Daily Mail, Clarence Mitchell states that Madeleine’s hairbrush was given to dubious Daniel Krugel for DNA matches. Daniel Krugel was in the Algarve in July 2007. The FSS samples were received in August 2007.

Whose HAIRBRUSH was the police given as being Madeleine’s?

The Forensic Science Service Birmingham received Madeleine’s hairbrush as forensics.

From the Lowe Report:

“Examination and results
Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36.”

The FSS received what they thought to be Madeleine’s hairbrush in August 2007. Madeleine’s hairbrush is allegedly given to Mr Krugel in July 2007 and returned to the McCanns ten years later.

It's an important point to make, that needs clarification, more than the issue of the conflicting versions, if Madeleine's hairbrush wasn't sent to the FSS then one could argue the validity of the tests.

https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/so-whose-hairbrush-was-sent-to.html

by Verdi 28.06.18 12:20

Witness statement Sylvia Cranvinho, laundry worker - 8th May 2007 [snipped]

After the girl's disappearance, she is not sure but believes it was last Saturday, 5th May she received a bag of clothes from MW employees and was told expressly that these were clothes from Madeleine's family. It included adult clothes (men's and women's clothing as well as children's clothing of different sizes, making it logical to presume that it included the girl's clothes given that her younger siblings are twins.

When asked whether she remembers which items of clothing she received that could belong to Madeleine, she says a pink coloured skirt with two layers, one of them having a checked pattern. She remembers that there was nothing abnormal about this piece of clothing or the others, such as blood stains, tears or any other kind of damage.
....................

Witness statement Vera Arez, laundry worker - 8th May 2007 [snipped]

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl's family and she checked that it was children's and adult's clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl's apartment.

That before that no clothing from the missing girl's family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.
...................

The McCanns had a washing machine in apartment 5a, maintenance had a call out earlier in the week to teach Ms Healy how to use it. They had an army of friends and relatives around to comfort them and help out with the daily chores - why did they send personal items to a holiday complex communal laundry ???

If your three year old precious daughter had gone missing, would you immediately send her clothes somewhere for a wash ??? Was cuddllecat in the laundry basket or did they wait until it had been dog-handled ???

by polyenne 28.06.18 12:20

….and the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her.

Right there is the get-out clause......

by sandancer 28.06.18 12:34

The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of ( in place of ) reference samples of her hair ( which were ) not considered to be authentic samples of her hair .

So they , the hairs weren't the right colour or length according to photographs of her ( which photos I wonder ?)
Sounds very scientific to me , we all have different colour hairs on our heads , even if you dye it ! Likewise unless the hair is shaved close to the scalp we have differing lengths .

The dogs are incredibly unreliable if tested scientifically , apparently but if hair doesn't look the right colour or length as a photo it doesn't get tested scientifically ?

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A_L_PALMER.htm

by dartinghero 28.06.18 13:09

Verdi wrote:Witness statement Sylvia Cranvinho, laundry worker - 8th May 2007 [snipped]

Witness statement Vera Arez, laundry worker - 8th May 2007 [snipped]

That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl's family and she checked that it was children's and adult's clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl's apartment.

That before that no clothing from the missing girl's family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family.
...................

The McCanns had a washing machine in apartment 5a, maintenance had a call out earlier in the week to teach Ms Healy how to use it. They had an army of friends and relatives around to comfort them and help out with the daily chores - why did they send personal items to a holiday complex communal laundry ???

If your three year old precious daughter had gone missing, would you immediately send her clothes somewhere for a wash ??? Was cuddllecat in the laundry basket or did they wait until it had been dog-handled ???

Having read the last few updates a couple of thing occurred. I previously didn't know what Verdi highlighted above but my immediate thought was that mingling a load of "significant" clothes together with other washes at the hotel laundry makes it impossible for that clothing to have any credibility forensically even if it was seized from the laundry before it was washed.

Second point, I seem to remember reading that it wasn't possible to get a DNA sample from a toothbrush at the apartment because all 3 children were sharing one toothbrush, hence the pillowcase palarvar. Struggling with the plausibility of that.....

by Imari 28.06.18 13:16

I saw the toothbrush thing too. RDHall's excellent series. IF you forgot the kids' toothbrushes would you not buy them all a new one (which they do seem to like actually), would you buy one between 3 being mean, or did you forget only Madeleine's brush? Or might you 'lose' the toothbrush before anyone could test it?

by dartinghero 28.06.18 15:01

I don't ever remember reading why there was only the one toothbrush, or even where I read/saw/heard it now. Did they give a reason?

Was it Richard D Hall? It's been a while since I saw his stuff.
hijacked

Sorry, I appear to have dragged the thread off topic

by Verdi 28.06.18 15:18

dartinghero wrote:Having read the last few updates a couple of thing occurred. I previously didn't know what Verdi highlighted above but my immediate thought was that mingling a load of "significant" clothes together with other washes at the hotel laundry makes it impossible for that clothing to have any credibility forensically even if it was seized from the laundry before it was washed.

Martin Grimes report

CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate
exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen
motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human
blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have
been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several
washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of
blood on property up to thirty-six years old.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ.
Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities. Blood that is
subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to
drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute
the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.

EVRD

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain......

The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where
there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious
material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. .....

The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to
identify the venting or exhaust channels of the scent through fissures in
bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce
the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable
environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where
controls may be included to increase assurity.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

by Verdi 28.06.18 15:28

Transcript: The Mystery of Madeleine McCann

PANORAMA

The Mystery of Madeleine McCann

Reporter: Richard Bilton

RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE
DATE: 19:11:07

[snoipped]

BILTON: He was right to sense a change. On the day filming was due to start the police arrive at the McCann villa. As they pictures show, they would return.

CORNER: They took most of their clothing, they were taking even the wet clothes out of the washing machine. I was aware that the cuddlecat was boxed up and we were asked to leave the villa.

BILTON: The crew?

CORNER: Everybody.

BILTON: So they searched the whole villa?

CORNER: Yes.

BILTON: So what, as all this is going on, what do Kate and Gerry make of this?

CORNER: Well this is the bizarre thing Richard because the police said to Kate and Gerry: "Yeah, we're going to be coming along, we want to do some forensics." And Kate and Gerry were massively optimistic about this. You've got to remember if your daughter is missing and the police phone you and say: "We want to do some forensics, that's a straw that you hang onto. That's a moment for optimism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm

Washing machine fix in apartment 5a; Kate McCann washing Madeleine's top and haging on the veranda to dry (possible tea stain :); Ocean Club laundry wash on 5th May; cuddlecat having a scrub; machine load of wet washing when Eddie and Keela arrived on the scene ? Sounds a bit OCD to me.

by willowthewisp 28.06.18 15:52

Hi Verdi,the only OCD that counts is the one where it,"Only, Completely,Disregards"any connections to the McCann family an Enigma unto themselves?

by Verdi 28.06.18 16:06

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Verdi,the only OCD that counts is the one where it,"Only, Completely,Disregards"any connections to the McCann family an Enigma unto themselves?

by dartinghero 28.06.18 22:24

Verdi wrote:
dartinghero wrote:Having read the last few updates a couple of thing occurred. I previously didn't know what Verdi highlighted above but my immediate thought was that mingling a load of "significant" clothes together with other washes at the hotel laundry makes it impossible for that clothing to have any credibility forensically even if it was seized from the laundry before it was washed.

Martin Grimes report

CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate
exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen
motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human
blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have
been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several
washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of
blood on property up to thirty-six years old.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ.
Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities. Blood that is
subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to
drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute
the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.

EVRD

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain......

The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where
there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious
material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. .....

The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to
identify the venting or exhaust channels of the scent through fissures in
bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce
the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable
environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where
controls may be included to increase assurity.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Sorry Verdi, I didn't make myself very clear. What I was meaning was that even if anything was detected it could be blamed on cross contamination and nothing to prove where the clothes had been after being removed from the apartment etc and therefore would be more shaky evidentially.
Sorry for derailing. Again sorry

by Verdi 29.06.18 0:09

dartinghero wrote:
Verdi wrote:
dartinghero wrote:Having read the last few updates a couple of thing occurred. I previously didn't know what Verdi highlighted above but my immediate thought was that mingling a load of "significant" clothes together with other washes at the hotel laundry makes it impossible for that clothing to have any credibility forensically even if it was seized from the laundry before it was washed.

Martin Grimes report

CSI HUMAN BLOOD DETECTING DOG

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate
exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen
motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human
blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have
been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several
washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of
blood on property up to thirty-six years old.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ.
Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities. Blood that is
subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to
drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute
the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.

EVRD

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain......

The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where
there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious
material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. .....

The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to
identify the venting or exhaust channels of the scent through fissures in
bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce
the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable
environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where
controls may be included to increase assurity.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Sorry Verdi, I didn't make myself very clear. What I was meaning was that even if anything was detected it could be blamed on cross contamination and nothing to prove where the clothes had been after being removed from the apartment etc and therefore would be more shaky evidentially.
Sorry for derailing. Again

No problem - I have an uncanny knack of sending out signals on the wrong frequency big grin

.

For what it's worth, I believe Eddie the EVRD's signals when examining the items of clothing belonging to the McCann family in the controlled environment, were a result of cross contamination. So you could well be right.

Be honest - who would wear the same harlequin pants for days after Madeleine's disappearance and on the return flight to Blighty, if the mother had been in direct contact with a corpse when wearing the same clothing. It doesn't bear thinking about. Nobody could be that callous - more to the point stupid!

by Verdi 19.11.18 14:55

If I may ressurect this errant thread and bring it right back on topic, it's interesting to note from all the hundreds if not thousands of media reports, not one mentions the possibility of Madeleine disappearing prior to 10:00pm (or thereabouts) on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

The McCann machine sowed the seed immediately the alarm was raised (I'm careful not to say immediately it was realised that Madeleine was missing) and it's been propagated ever since. It seems to me the only interested party that has bothered to delve into the case with depth is CMoMM.

Even if one has reservations, it can't be denied that the evidence to suggest an earlier fate is compelling to say the least. Even if folk refuse to accept that Madeleine wasn't seen by an independent witness with any degree of surety, there is still doubt as to when she was last seen alive and well - please note .... the McCanns nor their group of friends qualify as independent winesses !!!

The key seems to hinge entirely on the witness statement of Catriona Baker having high tea with the children around 4:30 to 5:30pm on the afternoon of Thursday 3rd May. The major issue here .... Catriona Baker didn't say Madeleine was at the high tea. If anyone can point me in the dirction where Ms Baker specifically states that she saw or was with Madeleine it would be much appreciated. Press reports do not count!

Give it some more thought good people, see the anomalies for what they are rather than making feeble excuses to dismiss them just because you don't want to accept the possibility of an earlier time/date of Madeleine's alleged disappearance.

Looking at it realistically, is it even feasible let alone possible for the entire plot to be hatched within a few hours? I don't think so!

by sar 19.11.18 16:01

by Franco99 12.01.19 17:50

"Shortly before the meeting seemingly two of the Tapas-Group were close to surrender and confession. Now at the Rothley Meeting all the main witnesses who are aware of a cover-up were “invited” to Rothley, even at least one of the former child carer at the Ocean Club. "

Hi Verdi.   On 19.11.18 (#139) You mention that everything hinges on Catriona Baker's witness statement.
                   Might it not be significant that Catriona Baker came all the way from Portugal to Rothley to sit

                   down with the Tapas 9 & the McCann's lawyers etc. for what appeared to be a "lets tough it out"

                   meeting?

                   It doesn't name her in the above couple of sentences from the Daily Mail report that I posted on

                   31.12.18 (#561) "The Rothley-Deal" but why on earth should they be including her in this Rothley
                   meeting in mid-November 2007 - a meeting which appears to include all the known possible
                   "suspects"?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.01.19 18:45

These last two posts are very good.

If Madeleine did 'disappear', or something very serious happened to her say four days earlier (not saying it did, people are watching), THEN the one really vital witness that could cover up the truth was certainly Cat Baker.

Being in sole charge of Madeleine's 'Lobster Group', she would be able to facilitate the forgery of the creche records, even without directly perpetrating the forgery herself.

Her evidence about the high tea was vital in convincing Goncalo Amaral that Madeleine was still alive at about 6pm on Thursday 3 May. Her evidence, I believe, was crucial in fixing his attention on events AFTER 6pm and deciding Madeleine must have suffered a fatal accident.

I do not think that a successful abduction hoax, however, could possibly have been carried out without additional backing by John Hill, the Ocean Club Manager, and the 'top brass' at Mark Warner. Alex Woolfall was only too willing to help Gerry McCann and Michael Wright to delete, select and crop photos on the McCanns' and the Paynes' cameras and hastily download them on to two computer disks - so that the Portuguese Police never saw the originals

.

by Roidininki 12.01.19 19:08

Do you think Miss Baker was coerced , by the power of suggestion , it was Madeleine she saw at high tea ?

by NickE 12.01.19 20:32

I believe Baker is an very important element in this case.
She and things around her stands out in a strange way.
This is a quote from an article (now deleted)in "The Times" from 2007:

"Valerie Armstrong, landlady of Rothley’s Royal Oak pub, where the McCanns sometimes go for lunch or dinner, said: “They are lovely, gentle, caring people.” She said that they would let only their nanny or relatives babysit the children, and chose the Mark Warner resort precisely because they thought that it was safe."

I have no idea how well this Valerie knew the McCann's but it sounds from this lady that they were not the kind of parents who could left there kids alone.
Why was not this nanny with them to Portugal?
Was she supposed to have travelled with them to pdl but she couldn't for any reasons?
As I said, things around Baker stands out.
*Her mother arrived on May 6.
*She was dispatched by MW to Greece and we know from old interviews that she wanted to be send back to Portugal but MW refused and she left the company.
*The McCann's told the journalist to leave her alone.
*She visited McCann's Rothley around the time for the T9 meeting.
Why all this when the McCann's were only there for a week and if she was only a daytime nanny for Maddies group in the Kids club and she had nothing to with what happened?
Or had she?
The question I ask myself, did the McCann's hired her from Sunday, paid under the table to babysit the children?

by Verdi 12.01.19 21:09

For some inexplicable reason, the McCann's themselves considered Catriona Baker to be a key witness, so much so they named her to be included in the list of friends and close acquaintances to be interviewed or re-interviewed during the rogatory process - conducted by Leicestershire police I hasten to add.

This really makes no sense at all. Catriona Baker was responsible for the children signed in at the daycare centre every day - that's daytime, a notional 9.00 to 5.00 arrangement. Madeleine allegedly disappeared on the night of 3rd May - why then is Catriona Baker considered to be a key witness? Apart from testifying to the McCann parent's general demeanor, that of Madeleine and her relationship with her parents, plus testifying as to anything that appeared suspicious around the children in her care which amounted to zero by all accounts, she is no more important to the official police investigation than any of the other childcare staff.

It seems apparent, at least to me, that we're not talking of the official investigation here but of the unofficial investigation conducted by representatives of team McCann.

My recent comments on the subject above ^^^ were solely in response to the wailing wall of CMOMM opponents who refuse point blank to accept there might be more to this than meets the eye, as regards to the true time and day of Madeleine's fate. Always using Catriona Baker's testimony to reinforce their argument and that of a variety of other witnesses who claim to have seen Madeleine alive and well during the week - yet to be named I might add.

Indeed there are many facets to Catriona Baker that are open to close scrutiny, she put herself out there so it's fair game. The same applies to the enigmatic Charlotte Pennington.

by Verdi 12.01.19 21:24

Catriona Baker witness statement - 6th May 20

No mention of high tea on Thursday 3rd May.

~~~

Catriona Baker rogatory interview - 18th April 2008

On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14479-key-witness-statements-for-information-only#373077

by **Tony Bennett** 12.01.19 22:05

Roidininki wrote:Do you think Miss Baker was coerced, by the power of suggestion, it was Madeleine she saw at high tea?

Well, I think there are basically FOUR POSSIBILITIES to explain Cat Baker's evidence, as follows:

1. Madeleine WAS at the high tea that day, Madeleine also WAS in the crèche all that week, and therefore Cat Baker's statements are basically truthful and therefore she is innocent

2. In some way that we are yet to learn, Cat Baker was either directly or indirectly involved in what may have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday, or was connected to her disappearance in some way, and therefore has lied about it

3. She has lied but has been coerced/intimidated/threatened, or

4. She has been bribed (paid).

I decline to say which I think is the most likely.

I think the contributions by @ NickE and @ Verdi (2) above havre been most helpful and have taken us further in our understanding of Cat Baker's evidence - thank you.

No, I do not think that Cat Baker was 'coerced by the power of suggestion that Madeleine was at high tea', if by that you mean that Cat Baker was overpersuaded to 'remember' that she was there when she was not...and now really believes that she was there.

One further suggestion has been made, by Lizzy HideHo, namely that Madeleine could have 'mistaken' some other child for Madeleine all that week. Despite the hard work, energy and ingenuity that Lizzy put into developing her theory, I honestly thought it was totally implausible (as did quite a few others IIRC). As always, I add that I am one of Lizzy's greatest admirers for the astonishing degree of work she has put into her research and for producing so many highly informative and popular YouTube videos
bow2

by Franco99 12.01.19 22:23

If this is Catriona Baker's police interview, I'm amazed that they didn't pick her up on her timings.

She starts off with very precise times - 'Madeleine arriving at 9.15 - 9.20' then 'arriving after lunch at about 14.45' but when it comes to Madeleine's departure, she seems to have lost her watch - 'Madeleine departs at 15.25/18.00'.
A two and a half hour time gap during which she doesn't see Madeleine?? Even though she was supposedly supervising the children? Not to mention "the high tea".....

by NickE 12.01.19 23:22

Media is media I know that but I wonder where Daily Mail got this information about Baker from:

PLANNING THE ABDUCTION HOAX. Was it done over four days, or four hours? - Page 6 Scree107

As a "night babysitter"?

Baker's rog:

PLANNING THE ABDUCTION HOAX. Was it done over four days, or four hours? - Page 6 Scree108

by Verdi 12.01.19 23:26

I think you'll find that to be an incorrect entry - logically it should read 17:35 - 18:00 hours, not 15:35 - 18:00 hours. A poor translation perhaps or Catriona Baker not being familiar with the 24 hour clock made a mistake in her timings. I don't believe it to be as you imply.

That aside, Catriona Baker doesn't say Madeleine left the Tapas area, she says Kate McCann came to pick her up - a big difference.

Look at the small print!

This just takes me back to my former point. The investigation wouldn't have been directly interested in Catriona Baker's timings as Madeleine allegedly disappeared at around 10:00pm (that's 22:00H) - thus far the PJ were utterly mislead and deluded.

That aside, I don't consider the rogatory interviews to be relevant or of any use to the official investigation. They were not witness statements per se, they were contrived interviews - a sort of cosmetic exercise. That much I believe to be apparent by their very nature and content.