Kate's statement.

by morskaj 07.09.13 3:51

Hi, I noticed on the moving bar of statements at the top, one which puzzled me a bit. Kate McCann says, ' Did they really think that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later, from a body that had been so swiftly removed?'.
I thought the McCanns said that there was no evidence that Madeleine was dead. That they were searching for her because, with no evidence she was dead, they believed she was still alive. But Kate asks how a dog could still detect the scent three months later of a 'body' - 'swiftly removed'.
If she thinks Madeleine is still alive, why does she mention a body? Does she think a cadaver has to be lying around for a certain amount of time before a dog can detect it?
Her statement seems to indicate that a). She knows Madeleine was at this time, for all intents and purposes, 'a body'. b). That 'the body' was removed so 'swiftly', they assumed no trace would be left of this 'body' for anyone or thing or a dog to detect.
What do others think?

by aiyoyo 07.09.13 6:18

Did they really think that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later, from a body that had been so swiftly removed?'.

Too much information coming from the knowing mind!

by **tigger** 07.09.13 6:21

Which is why Gerry also complained that the PJ were looking for a missing body.

by **PeterMac** 07.09.13 8:29

Full paragraph, in context.

"I trusted Ricardo back then but I struggled to understand how, never mind why, somebody could have killed Madeleine and removed her body within such a short time frame. It didn’t make sense. And, like the business of the ‘blood’, this ‘evidence of death’ seemed tenuous in the extreme. The police appeared to be telling us, on the say-so of a dog, that someone had definitely died in apartment 5A and, since nobody else they knew of had passed away there, it must have been Madeleine. Supposing she had been killed – and we think this extremely unlikely – she must have been taken out of the apartment within minutes. Did they really believe that a dog could smell the ‘odour of death’ three months later from a body that had been removed so swiftly? They were adding two and two and coming up with ten.
But of course to me, as Madeleine’s mother, it didn’t have to make sense at this point. The merest suggestion from Ricardo that it was even possible she had been killed in that flat was like a knife being twisted into my chest. My eyes, so tired of tears, succumbed to them yet again.
So Madeleine’s dead? . . . Psychopath? Burglary gone wrong? I need her body before I can believe this. I just can’t accept this. God, let them be wrong.

by windchime 07.09.13 8:42

So perhaps the body wasn't moved swiftly perhaps this is why she is making such a 'thing' of it. Tell us one thing to make us believe it when the opposite happened!

by **PeterMac** 07.09.13 8:48

She is telling us a hell of a lot in that paragraph !

by Guest 07.09.13 11:27

I still haven't brought myself to reading the book, just the quotes I found on-line.
This is a very interesting paragraph indeed.
I understand better and better, why Pat Brown advised Kate openly to "shut up". And I wonder why there are so many things like this left in the bewk. Who's done the proof-reading?

by Cristobell 07.09.13 12:53

Some say it would have been impossible for Kate and Gerry to act normally on the evening of 3rd May if they had been involved in Madeleine's disappearance, and indeed for most, that kind of stress would be impossible to conceal.

However, Kate's book perfectly illustrates that both she and Gerry are able to act 'normal', even in the most extreme circumstances. Kate details incidents where both she and Gerry have been hysterically out of control 'behind the scenes', Gerry writhing on the floor with grief and herself smashing up hotel furniture, yet their appearances in front of the camera are calm, articulate and some might even say, calculated, the interviews give no hint that their world was in fact falling apart. Again and again, they stated publicly that they had a good relationship with the PJ, and that they were looking for a 'live' child 'and they have said that a lot'.

In her book Kate states that they never lied, apart from one time, when they ducked out of a campaign trip, saying that Gerry had a tummy bug. Yet if we compare Kate's book to the events of the time, we can see that they were lying consistently. Their relationship with the police was far from good, Kate tells us herself that she sat through one police interview chanting the words 'f*cking to**er' and they were even considering making a break for the border with the kids. The book is unbelievably incriminating, if confirms what those of us still here 6 years later have always known. They were lying.

by **tigger** 07.09.13 13:16

PeterMac wrote:She is telling us a hell of a lot in that paragraph !

It's all on a par with the excuses for the cadaver odour in the car, implicit in the explanations given is NOT a denial of a body having been there but why it wasn't there. The 'why not' excuse telling us a lot.

by aiyoyo 07.09.13 17:16

PeterMac wrote:Full paragraph, in context.
"I trusted Ricardo back then but I struggled to understand how, never mind why, somebody could have killed Madeleine and removed her body within such a short time frame. It didn’t make sense. And, like the business of the ‘blood’, this ‘evidence of death’ seemed tenuous in the extreme. The police appeared to be telling us, on the say-so of a dog, that someone had definitely died in apartment 5A and, since nobody else they knew of had passed away there, it must have been Madeleine. Supposing she had been killed – and we think this extremely unlikely – she must have been taken out of the apartment within minutes. Did they really believe that a dog could smell the ‘odour of death’ three months later from a body that had been removed so swiftly? They were adding two and two and coming up with ten.
But of course to me, as Madeleine’s mother, it didn’t have to make sense at this point. The merest suggestion from Ricardo that it was even possible she had been killed in that flat was like a knife being twisted into my chest. My eyes, so tired of tears, succumbed to them yet again.
So Madeleine’s dead? . . . Psychopath? Burglary gone wrong? I need her body before I can believe this. I just can’t accept this. God, let them be wrong.

A forensic linguist would have a field day with her bewk.

Even a dim wit knows that death does not have to be proven by having a body, yet as a doctor she needs to see the body first before belief.

The last sentence is interestingly so so telling indeed.

First, she accepts the possibility that Madeleine could be dead....then questioned could it be fault of psychopath (which's probably right),followed by self questioning whether it be fault of burglary [how the hell can THAT be when no valuables were taken (apart from Madeleine of course)]
And, again, she entertained the thought that they (the Police) could be right when she said: "God let them be wrong".

If she did not believe Madeleine was dead, why not simply say "they are wrong". Why be so defensive if they'd nothing to do with it?

by Woburn_exile 07.09.13 17:29

Kate will crack with the answer to 3 questions. Only one of them can be the truth and with a little bit of pressure on and off she will crack. Gerry will probably intervene to make sure this never happens.

I wonder how all the other people involved in this are coping with the guilt, maybe a few hauled in and asked the same 3 questions would produce the same result.
PM me for details anyone as the site mods do not want this in the public domain. lol!