The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Introduction and viewpoint.

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 23.12.11 9:38

@monkey mind wrote:
Stella wrote:

This is a copy of the original OC daily run reports. G4N is in block 4. Block 4 is right beside block 5. The G4N Naylor booking arranged through the owner, is a T2, which is a 2 bedroom apartment and could have contained children. It is the child in this apartment that I believe Kiko is focussing on.

What is more interesting is why the dates and only the dates, flying in and out for the McCann's as seen above, have slipped down the page slightly. It's clearly visible on the copies the PJ hold in the files and printers cannot do that.

From what I have seen in the files, it would seem that a few guests were asked to stay on for an extra week. This can be seen through their booking extensions and police statements given. But I think they never made the connection with the creche sheets, which probably means they never spoke with all of the parents of the other children in Madeleine's creche group. If they did suspect the creche sheets were dubious, they would never have released them to the public. There must be something in the creche entries they did spot, as both the first and last days in the mornings, have been kept back from the twins creche sheets.

What I think is most revealing, is the timing of Amaral's removal. By his own admission, he was removed just when he was trying to locate this other apartment the McCann's were seen entering that week.

This really is most interesting. I wasn’t aware that Amaral was looking for another room – his book is on my ‘to do’ list. I knew some of the twins crèche sheets had been held back, would be revealing to see those, but not the Lobsters group, which would indicate if Kiko is right, Amaral didn’t fully appreciate the potential importance of this room, looking for it but not necessarily for the right reasons so to speak, assuming of course these two rooms turn out to be one and the same. He must have known who owned G4N, one would think, or at least had a list of names of all owners.

The room Amaral was interested in was down by the church and waterfront, so that was not block 4. It's possible he was focusing on a place for storage. At that point, anything to do with a Madeleine substitute had not even been considered. Kiko and I only stumbled upon this towards the end of 2010. Amaral has stated that they did not know who owns many of those apartments and villas, which was always going to be a stumbling block for the investigation. What is worse, according to Martin Grime, not all of his dogs alerts had been followed up with forensic testing. The question is why?

You really are very observant Stella. Once again we see a McCann entry directly above or below a Naylor entry and something not right about it. You are right, a printer wouldn’t do that, and if there were a crease in the sheet then I would expect that entry to be slightly slanted along with one or two others. Precisely.

It reminds me of the days with the old manual typewriters when having removed the paper from the machine an error is discovered tippex applied and then trying to realign it back in the machine was next to impossible I could never get it level.

Oh yes or those dot matrix printers that suddenly come off the spool on one side and all the type goes off into a completely different direction.

I’ve not seen the version in the PJ files, haven’t tried finding my way around there yet, but if that version is clearer did you notice any evidence of overtype or alteration? There also appears to be a mark to the left of the McCann dates but not against any of the others.

Yes, I had noticed that. Marks like that could happen during the scanning of the original pages. Or, if it is on the original, it could be a photocopy mark, suggesting it is not an original. It's something that only the PJ can look into.

The last column is filled with zeros save that against the second Naylors, the number 1. Any idea as to what that represents?

The two coloumns of numbers should represent adults and children. That is another very odd thing. The T9 entries have not been entered correctly and are seen as 5 adults.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 23.12.11 10:17

Monkey mind, I have just bumped 3 interesting threads for you.

Why did the McCann’s request an extra bed?

Fiona Payne and those alleged room upgrades

Sequential numbering and OC printer problems

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 23.12.11 12:02

It makes no sense not to forensically test areas the dogs alerted to. I can’t begin to explain that.

Equally, I cannot fathom why they didn’t send the cadaver and blood dogs into room 5J this was a serious error imo. Not to have sent there leaves room only for speculation. Should have been forensically examined also, in particular on the floor and beside the fridge, and definitely in the fridge. Wasn’t there some talk of one of the party later disposing of a fridge at a dump?

I find it difficult to believe that the Portuguese couldn’t find out who the owners of the properties at the OC were. Whether they actually tried beyond what records the OC themselves provided is another matter.
There must be some sort of property/land registry system records of sales etc. I know they were under political pressure, probably pressed for resources, but when you are missing a child or her body, well, the basics have to be done and that involves more than looking under bushes and in ditches.

And whilst we are on the subject of forensic examination I am minded to bring up another point. Whilst the most logical course of action would be to freeze a body, I’m not entirely convinced this was the case. People are assuming it was frozen because Guncalo concluded it was and I’m sure for good reason he genuinely believed it. But I would like to know what precisely he based that on, if there was anything more to it than simply time elapsed and the body fluid in the boot of the Renault. Because if we consider that car as a whole whilst there is little doubt she was there, there are one or two factors which I am having difficulty marrying to the frozen theory. I can think of one other possibility that may fulfil all the criteria. I agree freezing is the most likely, but I can see a problem with it, two actually.

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by rainbow-fairy on 23.12.11 12:46

Stella wrote:
@monkey mind wrote:Pershing, if there was a substitute, no I have no idea who that could be, but it appears others, after considerable research have come up with a plausible candidate.

As for where did she go, she would simply have left with her real parent or guardian, ample opportunity, very elegant really.

Thing is, if you dismiss the abduction theory, you have to decide whether she met her fate on the 3rd. If she didn’t, and I don’t see how she could have then you have to look to an earlier date of which the 1st appears the next likely option. But then how do we explain her attendance at crèche the two subsequent days? We are left with three options...

!. She didn’t attend and the entire weeks crèche records were somehow forged on the night of 3/4 May. Potentially under the nose of the police? There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this. There is decent evidence to indicate that many entries for E.Naylor and M. McCann may have been written in the same hand starting on 29/4. Why would that be when there is no indication as yet that the parents of these two children even knew one another? Only they can answer this. It’s a valid question and deserves an answer.

2. An M look alike attended on those two days 2nd and 3rd. Wouldn’t the crèche staff have noticed? Even if she were near identical she would have to answer to the name Madeleine or Maddie, as would any sub, and one thing is for sure any 3 to 4 year old is going to soon set you right for using the wrong name. One cannot conceive of the staff being deceived in this way or the enormous twist of fate required to provide, on hand a child that fits the bill and whose parents are willing. It would appear far easier, more plausible to have the sub from the outset.

3. The crèche staff aren’t telling the truth. Why? Not very likely is it?

another excellent post. You are coming up to speed very nicely.

As you say, the creche sheets are either genuine or forged. This can be confirmed in one day, by visiting the other names on those sheets to confirm either yes or no, that this is their signature. If the answers from them (with proof provided) is yes, then the deception must have started on the 29th. To have happened on any other day, the switch-over would have been obvious to all.
This set me thinking - is this the reason for the insistence that the McCanns never called their daughter Maddie? Remember? She was Madeleine, allegedly the Press made the name Maddie. Except that was blown out of the water - what was it the twins called her? Oh, yes - Maddie! Could be the sub objected to being called Maddie 'My name is Madeleine! I'm not Maddie'
T'would explain why they made such a big thing of this. Anyone agree?

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by TheHare on 23.12.11 13:02

[quote="rainbow-fairy"]
Stella wrote:Remember? She was Madeleine, allegedly the Press made the name Maddie. Except that was blown out of the water - what was it the twins called her? Oh, yes - Maddie!

If I remember correctly, I think Gerry McCann possibly referred to her as Maddie on his friends reunited entry.

TheHare

Posts : 23
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 23.12.11 13:03

@monkey mind wrote:And whilst we are on the subject of forensic examination I am minded to bring up another point. Whilst the most logical course of action would be to freeze a body, I’m not entirely convinced this was the case. People are assuming it was frozen because Guncalo concluded it was and I’m sure for good reason he genuinely believed it. But I would like to know what precisely he based that on, if there was anything more to it than simply time elapsed and the body fluid in the boot of the Renault. Because if we consider that car as a whole whilst there is little doubt she was there, there are one or two factors which I am having difficulty marrying to the frozen theory. I can think of one other possibility that may fulfil all the criteria. I agree freezing is the most likely, but I can see a problem with it, two actually.

Goncalo Amaral talks about bodily fluids that have not yet mummified. Something he has seen many times in the past, when a body has been found to be frozen.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 23.12.11 13:24

Stella wrote:Monkey mind, I have just bumped 3 interesting threads for you.

Why did the McCann’s request an extra bed?

Fiona Payne and those alleged room upgrades

Sequential numbering and OC printer problems
Thank you Stella.

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 23.12.11 13:28

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Stella wrote:
@monkey mind wrote:Pershing, if there was a substitute, no I have no idea who that could be, but it appears others, after considerable research have come up with a plausible candidate.

As for where did she go, she would simply have left with her real parent or guardian, ample opportunity, very elegant really.

Thing is, if you dismiss the abduction theory, you have to decide whether she met her fate on the 3rd. If she didn’t, and I don’t see how she could have then you have to look to an earlier date of which the 1st appears the next likely option. But then how do we explain her attendance at crèche the two subsequent days? We are left with three options...

!. She didn’t attend and the entire weeks crèche records were somehow forged on the night of 3/4 May. Potentially under the nose of the police? There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this. There is decent evidence to indicate that many entries for E.Naylor and M. McCann may have been written in the same hand starting on 29/4. Why would that be when there is no indication as yet that the parents of these two children even knew one another? Only they can answer this. It’s a valid question and deserves an answer.

2. An M look alike attended on those two days 2nd and 3rd. Wouldn’t the crèche staff have noticed? Even if she were near identical she would have to answer to the name Madeleine or Maddie, as would any sub, and one thing is for sure any 3 to 4 year old is going to soon set you right for using the wrong name. One cannot conceive of the staff being deceived in this way or the enormous twist of fate required to provide, on hand a child that fits the bill and whose parents are willing. It would appear far easier, more plausible to have the sub from the outset.

3. The crèche staff aren’t telling the truth. Why? Not very likely is it?

another excellent post. You are coming up to speed very nicely.

As you say, the creche sheets are either genuine or forged. This can be confirmed in one day, by visiting the other names on those sheets to confirm either yes or no, that this is their signature. If the answers from them (with proof provided) is yes, then the deception must have started on the 29th. To have happened on any other day, the switch-over would have been obvious to all.
This set me thinking - is this the reason for the insistence that the McCanns never called their daughter Maddie? Remember? She was Madeleine, allegedly the Press made the name Maddie. Except that was blown out of the water - what was it the twins called her? Oh, yes - Maddie! Could be the sub objected to being called Maddie 'My name is Madeleine! I'm not Maddie'
T'would explain why they made such a big thing of this. Anyone agree?
Bingo!!

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by rainbow-fairy on 23.12.11 14:15

Wasn't there mention of a girl named Madlene mentioned? And Gerry stumbled over the name a few times? I think it may've been in the Creche Autopsy thread?

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 23.12.11 14:41

Stella wrote:
@monkey mind wrote:And whilst we are on the subject of forensic examination I am minded to bring up another point. Whilst the most logical course of action would be to freeze a body, I’m not entirely convinced this was the case. People are assuming it was frozen because Guncalo concluded it was and I’m sure for good reason he genuinely believed it. But I would like to know what precisely he based that on, if there was anything more to it than simply time elapsed and the body fluid in the boot of the Renault. Because if we consider that car as a whole whilst there is little doubt she was there, there are one or two factors which I am having difficulty marrying to the frozen theory. I can think of one other possibility that may fulfil all the criteria. I agree freezing is the most likely, but I can see a problem with it, two actually.




Goncalo Amaral talks about bodily fluids that have not yet mummified. Something he has seen many times in the past, when a body has been found to be frozen.

Okay. Then let’s take a look at this. Firstly let me make it clear that I am not an expert in the decomposition of dead bodies, but I do have some experience with them.
I don’t know if anyone has encountered a corpse that has thawed out but they preserve remarkably well, as it goes in so it comes out so to speak. Think of your chicken pulled from the freezer.

There are two points in relation to the car that puzzle me. I recall once having to see a body that had been murdered, open wounds, autopsy which involves extensive incision and excision performed, put on ice for about 3 or 4 months I believe then thawed out. I can’t say how long the period from death to being frozen but would have been a minimum of 24 hours depends on period between death and discovery and discovery time of day. Point being, it didn’t smell too bad indistinguishable from the background smell of the morgue really, I’d smelt much worse.

The point is, if a body is frozen reasonably quickly after death how can we account for a smell so severe that it warrants the doors and boot of the car being left open days on end? And one would imagine attempts at cleansing. A corpse in a state of decomposition will definitely have that effect, its unmistakeable, once smelt never forgotten. But one reasonably freshly frozen? Probably still frozen? It must have thawed out many may say but I doubt a relatively freshly frozen corpse completely thawed then stuck in the boot of a car for say an hour or two would have such an effect. Take your turkey from the freezer, thaw it out, leave it in the kitchen for 24 hours, put it in the boot of your car and drive around for a couple of hours what effect do you think this would have? Now I know the turkey has had its internal organs removed but I’ll come to that.

So the only explanation is that if it had been frozen then it had been frozen in a state of decomposition then pretty much fully thawed out in the boot of the car. But this in itself makes little sense, why would I allow the body to thaw out before transportation? Personally speaking if it were me, having selected my perfect place or mode of disposal and the time had arrived I would choose to do the following things.

1. Make the journey from freezer at night.

2. Remove the body from the freezer and immediately wrap it in plastic.

3. Place it in a large holdall.

4. Depart immediately before it begins to thaw.

I think anyone who had committed a murder and frozen a corpse giving himself plenty of time to plan a final stage would do the above don’t you?
So even if we transport the corpse in the above fashion for say a couple of hours (wouldn’t want to be driving around with it for long now would we?) and it was freshly frozen, how do we account for the smell? Even if it was frozen in a state of decomposition how much thawing would we get in a short period of time? How long to defrost your unwrapped turkey? And if it had been in a state of decomposition the chances of it being noticed wherever it was being stored prior to freezing are much greater. I wouldn’t want to risk that. Got to get it safe, and safe pretty quickly.

And if it is frozen and wrapped as above how do we account for the body fluid in the car? It would have to be wrapped in plastic, or in a bag or both. We’ve placed it straight in the car and set off, how much fluid wil come out as it thaws? We are not talking of a block of ice here, whilst it has the feel of a block of ice it is in fact solid matter. When ice melts we get water. When solid matter thaws, we get solid matter.
The only place enough body fluid can have come from to seep through plastic and a large holdall or both is the stomach and intestines which would be at the centre of any decomposition. They would have to leak from the body and into the car and would have quite a profound effect. The exact effect we are talking about in fact. But being at the centre of decomposition they are also at the centre of the body and hence would be the last thing to thaw out. Which means I would have had to drive around with it for about 24 hours to achieve the desired result.

And that doesn’t strike me as very likely.

I’m not saying in this hypothetical situation we are discussing here it hadn’t been frozen it is indeed a likely scenario, but it isn't as straighforward as first appears, that for there to be an effect there must be a cause and for a frozen body to produce that cause and effect certain odd things have to happen. The primary purpose of freezing is to hide until a later date, but the frozen state also has advantages during transportation. Would you transport it frozen or wait until it has thawed and the decomposition process started anew??

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by pennylane on 23.12.11 15:05

What if a body is refrigerated (some 24 hours after death) rather than frozen, and then a few weeks later moved in the trunk of a car, near the car wheel well - on a warm day; and it's there in a sports bag for approx 3 or more hours... until the next location is reached?

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1190
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by puzzled on 23.12.11 15:42

@monkey mind wrote:
There are two points in relation to the car that puzzle me.

You're speaking for me here, too. I've always found the issue of the car very puzzling. It's always struck me as very strange that someone would keep a body frozen for three or four weeks, and then transport it at a time when there was a serious possibility of being caught in the act. I think it's interesting that not all the records for the hire car are in the Portuguese police files, especially records for the important period of late April/early May. Are they keeping them back I wonder? Was it just not being hired during that time? But if it was, I wonder who had it. There seem to be a lot of questions that need to be asked about the car.

puzzled

Posts : 187
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 23.12.11 15:51

Who said the car had a bad smell? All we know as fact, is that there is a statement from a lawyer, who witnessed the car boot open all night, for quite a few nights. If someone had tried to clean the carpets in the luggage area and needed those carpets to dry out, you would have to increase ventilation. Maybe a stain didn't come out the first time round and further scrubbing on other days was needed.

Goncalo Amaral suggested there was no decomposition, it had not mummified, which can only mean the body was placed in a freezer within a few hours.

The Renault Scenic does not have a concealed boot area. The rear of the car, is passenger seats 6 & 7. As soon as the sun comes up, the temperature inside the car will rise, anything frozen will thaw out quite quickly. Someone on here who works in a morgue has explained that internal body fluids, including the collection of blood in the lower regions will leak out of various orifaces, upper and lower. If a body is on it's side and the journey is bumpy and hilly, any number of factors could explain why body fluids would leak out. Unless a body, like freshly caught fish, is lowered inside a solid plastic container, chances are, it will leak. Fluids like any running water, find the smallest of cracks to seep through.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 23.12.11 16:13

@puzzled wrote:
@monkey mind wrote:
There are two points in relation to the car that puzzle me.

You're speaking for me here, too. I've always found the issue of the car very puzzling. It's always struck me as very strange that someone would keep a body frozen for three or four weeks, and then transport it at a time when there was a serious possibility of being caught in the act.

Shopping goes in the car, rubbish is taken to the refuse tip, the family are picked up and dropped off at airports. So many car journeys, who would have suspected anything? The villa was gated and walled and I'm pretty sure the press were told to bogoff and leave them alone at that point.

I think it's interesting that not all the records for the hire car are in the Portuguese police files, especially records for the important period of late April/early May. Are they keeping them back I wonder? Was it just not being hired during that time? But if it was, I wonder who had it. There seem to be a lot of questions that need to be asked about the car.

The PJ would be holding this information back for various reasons, but the important thing to remember is, the period in which the McCann's had it. That Eddie signalled a dead body inside it, in exactly the same area fluids were found with a 15/19 match to Madeleine. So who had the car before the McCann's did, is not really important anymore.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Upsy Daisy on 23.12.11 16:45

Maybe the body (sorry, awful content alert....) was thawed prior it being cut into pieces, which enabled quicker and easier disposal. Perhaps different body parts were dropped at different locations. Just a thought (albeit a horrendous one). That way nobody would ''find THE BODY and prove we killed her'' as GM once quoted................

Welcome Monkey Mind. I love reading what new members have to say, it helps to have fresh perspective put up for discussion. There are so many people here that have such a wealth of information and excellent memories to point us in the direction of specific posts, topics, etc. and it's always great to read interesting debates of those in the know who can provide us with facts, along with the differing theories. I too was leaning towards the 'accident' theory however the more I read and the more of I see of 'that pair' the more I am inclined to think premeditation and abject cruelty. The grieving, innocent parents of a lost child they are not. The smugness that emits from their being says it all...they know what happened and they ain't telling....however, the facts thus far as they unravel are telling the story for them, it's just a matter of time. The information is out there and contrary to their deludedness, not 'everyone' believes in their ridiculous tale (KM likes to think so though).......The problem is, will they go down for this or will they once more and finally, have the issue whitewashed by the powers that be, judging by the protection they had from the start. Who knows. Anyway, I look forward to reading many more of your posts and contribution to discussion.

____________________
Grammatical Error of The Day : It's should 'have', NOT should 'of'......

Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Stella

Post by tigger on 23.12.11 17:09

Stella, it was Michael Wright who said this, I believe in his rogatory, but certainly in an official interview.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Upsy Daisy on 23.12.11 17:20

Tigger, yes I recall from Michael Wright's interview that he had suggested that he 'thought the bad smell had come from the twins dirty nappies' or words to that effect.

____________________
Grammatical Error of The Day : It's should 'have', NOT should 'of'......

Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Invinoveritas on 23.12.11 17:47

@Upsy Daisy wrote:Tigger, yes I recall from Michael Wright's interview that he had suggested that he 'thought the bad smell had come from the twins dirty nappies' or words to that effect.

from Michael Wright's rogatory:

I noted some disagreeable smells on a number of occasions which I judged to have come from the twins' nappies. Discarded nappies were collected in rubbish bags and held until thrown into the [rubbish] bins, [thereby] provoking smell.
I have no knowledge of anything spilling from any article nor of any cleaning of the car after such a hypothetical spill


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

about three quarters down

____________________
"A voyage of discovery is not just seeing new sights - it is seeing familiar sights with new eyes." Proust

Invinoveritas

Posts : 374
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-13
Location : Nowereland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by puzzled on 23.12.11 17:49

Stella wrote:

The PJ would be holding this information back for various reasons, but the important thing to remember is, the period in which the McCann's had it. That Eddie signalled a dead body inside it, in exactly the same area fluids were found with a 15/19 match to Madeleine. So who had the car before the McCann's did, is not really important anymore.

Oh, I don't raise these issues to get the McCanns off the hook. Far from it. I would really, really like to know who had that car during the dates of the holiday ........

____________________
...how did you feel the last time you squashed a bug? -psychopathic criminal, quoted in Robert Hare, Without Conscience

puzzled

Posts : 187
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Nina on 23.12.11 19:41

@Invinoveritas wrote:
@Upsy Daisy wrote:Tigger, yes I recall from Michael Wright's interview that he had suggested that he 'thought the bad smell had come from the twins dirty nappies' or words to that effect.

from Michael Wright's rogatory:

I noted some disagreeable smells on a number of occasions which I judged to have come from the twins' nappies. Discarded nappies were collected in rubbish bags and held until thrown into the [rubbish] bins, [thereby] provoking smell.
I have no knowledge of anything spilling from any article nor of any cleaning of the car after such a hypothetical spill


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

about three quarters down



How old were the twins on this holiday? And still in nappies and pooing nappies? Surely they would have been well on the way to being toilet trained especially through the day, maybe a wet nappy at night and this wouldn't smell so bad. They were in the creche all day at the start of the holiday so were they having to be changed? I cannot imagine for a moment that Kate would have not got the twins clean and dry through the day.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2696
Reputation : 240
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by jd on 23.12.11 19:48

@Nina wrote: How old were the twins on this holiday? And still in nappies and pooing nappies? Surely they would have been well on the way to being toilet trained especially through the day, maybe a wet nappy at night and this wouldn't smell so bad. They were in the creche all day at the start of the holiday so were they having to be changed? I cannot imagine for a moment that Kate would have not got the twins clean and dry through the day.

If you look at the twins from the month before in Donegal, they had gone past the toilet trained days

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Nina on 23.12.11 20:13

@jd wrote:
@Nina wrote: How old were the twins on this holiday? And still in nappies and pooing nappies? Surely they would have been well on the way to being toilet trained especially through the day, maybe a wet nappy at night and this wouldn't smell so bad. They were in the creche all day at the start of the holiday so were they having to be changed? I cannot imagine for a moment that Kate would have not got the twins clean and dry through the day.

If you look at the twins from the month before in Donegal, they had gone past the toilet trained days


Jd, tongue was very firmly in cheek when I made that post Of course there were no smelly nappies.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2696
Reputation : 240
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by jd on 23.12.11 20:55

@Nina wrote: Jd, tongue was very firmly in cheek when I made that post Of course there were no smelly nappies.

I am still amazed at how the twins grew so much younger in a month! And how the cousins grew younger in a year! is there some scientific discovery the world does not know about?

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 23.12.11 21:14

Stella wrote:Who said the car had a bad smell? All we know as fact, is that there is a statement from a lawyer, who witnessed the car boot open all night, for quite a few nights. If someone had tried to clean the carpets in the luggage area and needed those carpets to dry out, you would have to increase ventilation. Maybe a stain didn't come out the first time round and further scrubbing on other days was needed.

Goncalo Amaral suggested there was no decomposition, it had not mummified, which can only mean the body was placed in a freezer within a few hours.

The Renault Scenic does not have a concealed boot area. The rear of the car, is passenger seats 6 & 7. As soon as the sun comes up, the temperature inside the car will rise, anything frozen will thaw out quite quickly. Someone on here who works in a morgue has explained that internal body fluids, including the collection of blood in the lower regions will leak out of various orifaces, upper and lower. If a body is on it's side and the journey is bumpy and hilly, any number of factors could explain why body fluids would leak out. Unless a body, like freshly caught fish, is lowered inside a solid plastic container, chances are, it will leak. Fluids like any running water, find the smallest of cracks to seep through.

Let me say this, I don’t for one minute doubt that M was in that car, I have total confidence in the dogs and 15 markers out of 19 is as good as any fingerprint.

Also, I am perfectly aware of what body fluids in a corpse will do and where and how they will leak, I’ve seen it enough. I don’t need another’s explanation of leakage hence my use of that very word in my last post.

And in fact I think that is exactly what did happen, and it was that leakage which caused the bad smell and despite efforts to remove it the dogs had no problem alerting to it. However, to simply state that because there was no mummification is proof that the body must have been frozen, well I would argue that may illustrate all possibilities have not been considered. What I am about to propose as a possibility that would explain the details of the car, may not be right, but it should be considered.

Also, I’m not attempting to point away from obvious suspects not at all, but if I can see these anomalies, then if one day someone were ever charged with this crime, the car would undoubtedly be a crucial piece of evidence, one which one of the very best defence counsel teams in the land would do their very best to discredit. So it is important not to twist facts to fit theories, the theory must conform to the facts. If there are anomalies in one line of theory it is well to be aware of them, consider explanations along with other possibilities.

That fluid can’t have come from a frozen corpse, or one even in mid thaw, not unless we reverse the laws of physics and the body thaws from the inside out. It’s possible it had once been frozen and had almost completely defrosted but even in a hot car with windows open this would take a long time to reach the necessary level. And let’s be fair, if it were you or I, we would want to avoid that would we not?

I believe it was Michael Wright who said there was a bad smell in the car, a man who clearly – despite being on the nominated driver lists tried to disassociate himself from driving that car prior to the dog’s findings. But then I’m sure I would do the same thing innocent or otherwise. Yet he does state he noticed a bad smell, whether he did, or was aware that there had been one is moot. It’s in his testimony. Why make it up?

And yes, we have the lawyer, a very important witness imho. Would have been nice to tie down exactly when those nights were and how many when the boot was left open don’t you think? And if the climate is sufficiently great to rapidly thaw a frozen corpse then it will make short work of drying a shampooed carpet in a car will it not? Can’t have it both ways. And if the carpet has to be washed day after day and aired then we can safely conclude the culprit was more than a dirty nappy that would have been wrapped in a bag, even with a raw steak and a chicken wing thrown in for good measure.

Quote: “Goncalo Amaral suggested there was no decomposition, it had not mummified, which can only mean the body was placed in a freezer within a few hours.”

Really? Maybe he is right.
It seems he also thinks she died by accident on the 3rd doesn’t he?

But what if I buried a body in dry sand? What if in the back of my mind I was aware that ancient cultures used to do this to dry out, to preserve and mummify their dead? I might think that this was a very safe way of storing the body until my appointed hour of disposal. Particularly, if I had had a plan A for storage which had somehow fallen through and I needed a quick alternative. Sand is a superb medium for mummification unlike earth and soil which are very aerobic, sand forms an airtight seal and desiccates into the bargain. Only needs to be shallow too. Ah, but the body fluid wasn’t mummified was it.

No but then the ancient peoples practising their art always removed the inner organs, liver, kidneys, intestines etc before the process of mummification. I suspect what would happen if you didn’t would be that you would get mummification from the outside whilst in the interior of the body putrification and liquifaction would take place as normal. And there would be a lot of it. I’m not sure how long this fluid would remain because to be honest, I haven’t actually tried it. But there would be fluid for quite a while. I’m sure of it. And that fluid would produce a smell that would take days of washing and airing to clear.

There would likely be some seepage from the body in the sand, minimal depending on how level it had been laid, the only way it would all run out is if it were placed at a steep angle and that’s hardly likely.

And I would come along one night with my bag, and as I dug it up and placed it in the bag and as I heaved it into the car and stuff ran out, more later bumping along in the car, well then it would be too late to do anything about it. And that fluid wouldn’t be mummified. Nor would it have been frozen.

And whilst it was buried in the sand, mummifying, I might take a jog or a run every day, just so as I could keep an eye, make sure animals, people or police hadn’t disturbed it.

As I say, I’m not saying this is right, but at this moment I can’t work out why someone would freeze a corpse then thaw it out to transport it. They may have done, but I can’t work out why. Yet.

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 23.12.11 21:22

[quote="Upsy Daisy"]Maybe the body (sorry, awful content alert....) was thawed prior it being cut into pieces, which enabled quicker and easier disposal. Perhaps different body parts were dropped at different locations. Just a thought (albeit a horrendous one). That way nobody would ''find THE BODY and prove we killed her'' as GM once quoted................

This is more than plausible. Michael Wright talks of taking many trips to various refuse dumps in order to dispose of garden refuse. Wouldn’t the gardening be contracted out? Who takes to gardening someone else’s villa at such times? Why mention it at all? Only two possibilities I can see. 1) He thought the police may discover sightings of him or the car at the various tips so he got in first. 2) Send everyone scurrying in the wrong direction. Both ar plausible.

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum