Gerry's clothes

by corpushining 16.10.13 14:24

If we all accept the Smith sighting as a potential sighting of Gerry with Madeline- how come the clothes he wore that night didn't have the cadaver scent with the dogs?

Are we sure the clothes Gerry wore at the Tapas restaurant are the same as the ones identified later?

by whmon 16.10.13 14:38

One thing I do know about men and women is the differences they may feel about 'the clothes shopping trip'. While I really enjoy the hunt for that special little number - my husband views the whole process with absolute dread. He refuses to come with me and when he ventures out on his own clothes shopping trip he will invariably buy from the first and only shop he visits. The thing is - if he sees something he likes he will usually buy two or three of the item. His reasoning is that the more clothing he buys per shopping trip, the less shopping trips to be made!

Could GMs clothing not be tainted with cadaver odour because it was in fact duplicate clothing?

by russiandoll 16.10.13 14:51

corpushining wrote:If we all accept the Smith sighting as a potential sighting of Gerry with Madeline- how come the clothes he wore that night didn't have the cadaver scent with the dogs?

Are we sure the clothes Gerry wore at the Tapas restaurant are the same as the ones identified later?

Because he was carrying a live sleeping child aged 3-4, not Maddie ?

by tiny 16.10.13 14:57

russiandoll wrote:
corpushining wrote:If we all accept the Smith sighting as a potential sighting of Gerry with Madeline- how come the clothes he wore that night didn't have the cadaver scent with the dogs?

Are we sure the clothes Gerry wore at the Tapas restaurant are the same as the ones identified later?
Because he was carrying a live sleeping child aged 3-4, not Maddie ?

are you suggesting that Gerry wanted to be seen

by **tigger** 16.10.13 15:18

tiny wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
corpushining wrote:If we all accept the Smith sighting as a potential sighting of Gerry with Madeline- how come the clothes he wore that night didn't have the cadaver scent with the dogs?

Are we sure the clothes Gerry wore at the Tapas restaurant are the same as the ones identified later?
Because he was carrying a live sleeping child aged 3-4, not Maddie ?
are you suggesting that Gerry wanted to be seen

Yes, definitely, by one or two passers-by, not surrounded by nine inquisitive people who asked him questions.
Imo:
This decided him to play safe and grab the only independent witness - Wilkins to back him up and have JT see the two of them together at that time.
However, if Wilkins can't remember seeing JT, it' s only normal for Gerry not to have noticed either. The main thing was JT seeing all three at the same time.
They've stuck to it like glue for six years, fitting (and a bad fit it was) everything else around it.

by tiny 16.10.13 15:24

tigger wrote:
tiny wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
corpushining wrote:If we all accept the Smith sighting as a potential sighting of Gerry with Madeline- how come the clothes he wore that night didn't have the cadaver scent with the dogs?

Are we sure the clothes Gerry wore at the Tapas restaurant are the same as the ones identified later?
Because he was carrying a live sleeping child aged 3-4, not Maddie ?
are you suggesting that Gerry wanted to be seen
Yes, definitely, by one or two passers-by, not surrounded by nine inquisitive people who asked him questions.
Imo:
This decided him to play safe and grab the only independent witness - Wilkins to back him up and have JT see the two of them together at that time.
However, if Wilkins can't remember seeing JT, it' s only normal for Gerry not to have noticed either. The main thing was JT seeing all three at the same time.
They've stuck to it like glue for six years, fitting (and a bad fit it was) everything else around it.

well this alive child must have been drugged,dont forget it was a chilly night, any sleeping child would have woken being in the cold night air with only jimjams on

by bodiddly 16.10.13 15:28

russiandoll wrote:
corpushining wrote:If we all accept the Smith sighting as a potential sighting of Gerry with Madeline- how come the clothes he wore that night didn't have the cadaver scent with the dogs?

Are we sure the clothes Gerry wore at the Tapas restaurant are the same as the ones identified later?
Because he was carrying a live sleeping child aged 3-4, not Maddie ?

Good point and great answer.

Is cadaver scent immediate or does it require a minimum "death time". I have immediate in my head for some reason but I am not certain.

by russiandoll 16.10.13 15:30

tiny, agree .

by brilynn 16.10.13 15:33

RUSSIANDOLL,as always,your spot on!!

by tiny 16.10.13 15:37

russiandoll wrote:tiny, agree .

now you have given me more food for thought,are you saying Madeleine died earlier, if that's the case then all the tapas MUST have known or how would they cover for Madeleines absent in the group

by russiandoll 16.10.13 15:58

I am not sure how many knew... I am not sure of anything It is just my conclusions based on my reading. The group changed routine suddenly on Thursday. There is silence about 2nd and also about 30th April.

    A beach trip afternoon of 3rd, but McCanns and kids not there. imo arranged to keep DW in the dark.Twins in crèche, Maddie signed in her regular crèche with one other child of the group, that child was not picked up and taken to beach until late afternoon...left out, I found it odd she was taken to crèche then.
And they all stayed at the beach for tea.
    DW imo was the only one telling the truth in her witness statements.

   She was also told to stay at the table when the alarm was raised and the drama was acted out.

Something very odd went on the day that the big event happened.

by boo boos 16.10.13 16:01

Maybe OT so please move if wrong place, but I find it more than a little hard to believe how ALL the children never woke that night - Jt non - abductors child, pjs. bare feet, no blanket; the twins - no covers slept through the commotion, Maddie when 'taken',as well as the one seen by smith family. A child would need to be VERY tired to continue sleeping. Also notice how long the Payne children in particular (one under 1, the other under 3 - not newborns) slept . Anywhere from 1.30 to 4.30, then asleep again by 8.30? Children who sleep that long in the day are usually wide awake at bedtime. You try keep them awake in day if you want them to sleep at night. From my own experience, may be different for others of course.

by russiandoll 16.10.13 16:04

yes it is interesting esp re Paynes, who had a monitor did not need to do checks unless alerted [yes this is from doctors] and seemingly never did need to disturb their meal at least not on 3rd.

by sallypelt 16.10.13 16:06

boo boos wrote:Maybe OT so please move if wrong place, but I find it more than a little hard to believe how ALL the children never woke that night - Jt non - abductors child, pjs. bare feet, no blanket; the twins - no covers slept through the commotion, Maddie when 'taken',as well as the one seen by smith family. A child would need to be VERY tired to continue sleeping. Also notice how long the Payne children in particular (one under 1, the other under 3 - not newborns) slept . Anywhere from 1.30 to 4.30, then asleep again by 8.30? Children who sleep that long in the day are usually wide awake at bedtime. You try keep them awake in day if you want them to sleep at night. From my own experience, may be different for others of course.

And let's not forget this:

Fiona Payne: 'Kate McCann kept putting her hands on the twins to check if they were breathing'

00.53.22 1485 “Did the twins wake up at all?”

Reply “They didn’t. They didn’t”.

1485 “In the aftermath?”

Reply “No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn’t, you know, so much as blink”.

by Guest 16.10.13 16:50

russiandoll wrote:yes it is interesting esp re Paynes, who had a monitor did not need to do checks unless alerted [yes this is from doctors] and seemingly never did need to disturb their meal at least not on 3rd.

According to one of the tapas statements, might have been GM he thinks Payne checked the children on Wednesday.

by boo boos 16.10.13 17:38

candyfloss wrote:
russiandoll wrote:yes it is interesting esp re Paynes, who had a monitor did not need to do checks unless alerted [yes this is from doctors] and seemingly never did need to disturb their meal at least not on 3rd.
According to one of the tapas statements, might have been GM he thinks Payne checked the children on Wednesday.

The Payne's certainly had the magic formula for getting children to sleep. Even before they had any kids, fiona recalls Maddie slept through night for first time when the mccanns went to their wedding. Funny that eh. Saw the coincidence as soon as I read that. Sorry for making this topic about sleep. They seem to overlap and veer off. I'm new at this. Feel free to move.

by boo boos 22.10.13 18:45

Maybe OT so please move if wrong place, but I find it more than a little hard to believe how ALL the children never woke that night - Jt non - abductors child, pjs. bare feet, no blanket; the twins - no covers slept through the commotion, Maddie when 'taken',as well as the one seen by smith family. A child would need to be VERY tired to continue sleeping. Also notice how long the Payne children in particular (one under 1, the other under 3 - not newborns) slept . Anywhere from 1.30 to 4.30, then asleep again by 8.30? Children who sleep that long in the day are usually wide awake at bedtime. You try keep them awake in day if you want them to sleep at night. From my own experience, may be different for others of course.
Have moved this from Gerry's clothes thread. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Never had trouble getting children on to sleep? I know I have. Have also read since this op that the night creche lent blankets to cover sleeping children being carried home . So why not this child? Sounds too noisy and maybe uncomfortable for a child to just fall asleep- also in a strange environment, they didn't. Play up? Think Bridget O 'Donnell had to get hers one night.
Mods, would you be so kind as to put my sleep posts into the over sleepy children thread please. I've only gone and posted it back in the wrong one. None of it makes sense or forms a base for debate as it is. If not, Il leave well alone!

by stumo 22.10.13 23:33

russiandoll wrote:
corpushining wrote:If we all accept the Smith sighting as a potential sighting of Gerry with Madeline- how come the clothes he wore that night didn't have the cadaver scent with the dogs?

Are we sure the clothes Gerry wore at the Tapas restaurant are the same as the ones identified later?
Because he was carrying a live sleeping child aged 3-4, not Maddie ?

But that doesn't work with the cadaver scent in the apartment, flower bed etc?

by russiandoll 23.10.13 9:34

Stumo, could you expand a little on your question please? Re how the theory of Gerry with another child does not tie in with what was found at 5a by the dogs?

by stumo 24.10.13 0:40

russiandoll wrote:Stumo, could you expand a little on your question please? Re how the theory of Gerry with another child does not tie in with what was found at 5a by the dogs?

Sorry, didn't read your post correctly but i don't see why Gerry (if it was him...with a similar gait and clothing) would be carrying a live child that wasn't Maddie.

i think i read your post that he was carrying a live sleeping Maddie..... so i said that doesn't seem right as there was cadaver fluid in the apartment etc.

by woodforthetrees 08.04.14 10:37

This is the thing that baffles me slightly. Surely there would be some scent of cadaver transfered onto Gerry from within the apartment if he was the one doing the disposal of the body? It would at some point be transfered onto his skin and clothes. If then even if he did change clothes, it would be hard to escape cross-contamination?

If it was Gerry carrying a sleeping child (as spotted by the Smiths) and not Madaleine, then that would explain no cadaver scent on those clothes i suppose. My only concern with that sighting is the very narrow window of opportunity he had to manufacture a sighting etc. Anyway, back to cadaver.......

Was the cadaver scent found on the drivers side front of the Renault Scenic? i.e where Gerry was sitting (driving)? If so, it must be on his clothes as well? If so...where are these clothes?

More importantly, if the body was then moved to either a wheelie bin or sports bag and moved in and out of the cupboard in the wardrobe, who did the moving and why was there no additional scent picked up. I pressume a child in a sports bag would be quite a dead weight for Kate to pick up on her own.

(i actually suspect that Kate doesn't know the full truth herself in all this!).

Another quick question and apologies if this has been asked before, but....

Were the cadaver dogs let loose around the other apartments and the tapas groups clothes?? If one of them was to help out with the disposal, there must surely be scent somewehre?

Food for thought?............

by Carrry On Doctor 08.04.14 11:58

russiandoll wrote:
corpushining wrote:If we all accept the Smith sighting as a potential sighting of Gerry with Madeline- how come the clothes he wore that night didn't have the cadaver scent with the dogs?

Are we sure the clothes Gerry wore at the Tapas restaurant are the same as the ones identified later?
Because he was carrying a live sleeping child aged 3-4, not Maddie ?

Spot on RD

From the information available, it strongly suggests to me that an 'event' (which I believe was tragic and unintentional) happened much earlier in the holiday.

Smithman was carrying a decoy child to support the theory of abduction which was planned for several days and acted out on the evening of the 3rd....external assistance having already been called upon to assist with what lied at the heart of the matter.

All IMO of course.

by Cristobell 08.04.14 12:05

I'd be suspicious of Kate's devotion to washing. She managed to do a load on the Saturday. just 2 days after Madeleine vanished (who thinks of doing the washing in those circumstances?), and she got a load on whilst waiting for the forensic team to turn up at their villa. Lets not forget also, her washing of Cuddle Cat and that tea stain, as another poster said 'out damn spot!'

by **tigger** 08.04.14 12:12

Mark Warner did all the washing for Kate on Saturday. It contained probably a number of Maddie's clothes. It's in the files. The woman who did the laundry was interviewed.

She washed cuddlecat after a week or so herself, then just when they'd heard the PJ were coming round to do the forensics, she threw a whole load in the washing machine. Which the PJ took out apparently.

Even after those two washes of CC, it seems the ~~perfumes of Arabia~~ weren't sufficiently strong to eliminate the scent that Eddie had been looking for. winkwink

by HelenMeg 08.04.14 12:20

Carrry On Doctor wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
corpushining wrote:If we all accept the Smith sighting as a potential sighting of Gerry with Madeline- how come the clothes he wore that night didn't have the cadaver scent with the dogs?

Are we sure the clothes Gerry wore at the Tapas restaurant are the same as the ones identified later?
Because he was carrying a live sleeping child aged 3-4, not Maddie ?
Spot on RD

From the information available, it strongly suggests to me that an 'event' (which I believe was tragic and unintentional) happened much earlier in the holiday.

Smithman was carrying a decoy child to support the theory of abduction which was planned for several days and acted out on the evening of the 3rd....external assistance having already been called upon to assist with what lied at the heart of the matter.

All IMO of course.

Yes I believe that is what happened. Smithman aka Gerry wished to drum up some support for the abduction theory and borrowed a 'Live' child similar in appearance to Madeleine for the purpose of strolling 'head down' through the streets. He made sure he was seen, although unfortunately the plan backfired. I cant decide whether the event occurred a day or two or three earlier or actually on the 3rd May. Murat's return seems to support an early event (but could've been coincidental) but Amaral seemed to firmly believe 3rd May was the date..