Re: Gerry's clothes

by Guest 09.04.14 15:22

@JRob,

Yes, i'm in total agreement that there was a lot of 'Pre-Planning' involved. I was having this discussion with a poster yesterday who didn't think there was any, and it was all concocted an hour or so before the police arrived. I personally don't go with that scenario at all.

The point i was trying to say to you was that as bonkers as you well put, as this case is. I still don't think the 'Pre-Planning' was set in motion BEFORE the holiday commenced.

Something clearly happened early on in the holiday, the exact date i'm unsure about. My initial thoughts was MBM met her demise on the 2nd. However, as you rightly pointed out there are other factors which indicate it was earlier on than that.

However once the fatality occurred and backs needed to be covered, skins saved etc etc, then that was when all the 'Pre-planning' started.

IMO of course.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 09.04.14 15:36

HelenMeg wrote:
I dont think that is correct - your suggestion that the outside indication was not as certain as the inside ones. The dogs indicate or they dont - simple as that . There is the scent they are trained to find - or there is not. No 'maybe's.

It isn't my suggestion, it comes from this source, which indicates that actually you may be incorrect:

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

'PJ Summary Report:

- cadaver odour dog:
* in a flowerbed, the dog handler commented on the lightness of the scent detected

(In 'The Truth of the Lie', Gonçalo Amaral states that outside, Eddie gives two more alerts of cadaver odour, on the veranda of the couple's bedroom and also in a garden situated directly below it. Here, the bark is weaker, like a "could be", with some doubt, like a human shrugging their shoulders.

The 57-page PJ Report Summary makes no mention of cadaver odour being indicated on the veranda.)'

by sar 09.04.14 15:39

j.rob wrote:Then factor in that other holiday-makers were being asked to send in their photos of their own holidays that week to Team McCann and their acolytes. Now, why would that be, I wonder?? So Team McCann and friends can scrutinize who was there and when, perhaps? Plus find photos of the other Tapas children and establish who they were with? Plus establish whether anyone had footage of the entire kids' club group - complete with all the children which should obviously include Madeleine?

And why would Hodge's nephew respond to questions (from Tony Bennett?) that he had a photograph of his own children with Madeleine in the background (taken, on the final day?)

Little bit of a 'hot potato' the whole photograph business.

And why would Kate and Russell be taking video-footage of a child playing mini-tennis that was not their own child?

I reckon Team McCann were anxious to get hold of all the evidence they could that might incriminate their own version of what Madeleine was doing on that holiday.

Given all of the above (and there are many other red flags apart from these) I am pretty certain that *something* happened to Madeleine either on Sunday or Monday. *Something* that was serious enough for the team to concoct an elaborate and complicated series of alibis for practically the entire week.

Complete madness the whole thing, imo.

...yeah, why would someone need video of a child playing tennis that was not there own?... What could that achieve?

by aiyoyo 09.04.14 21:33

@wlbts
Perhaps Maddie didn't sleep in her bed, she could have been put in the parents' bedroom. In my opinion it is more difficult to explain why they didn't mess up the bed if the whole event was fake and they had plenty of time to set the stage.

You seem very defensive over your dogma view and appear not to like being challenged.
But this one takes the cake.
Kate told the whole wide world in her Mockumetary she peeped into Maddie's room in the dark couldn't make out whether Maddie was on her bed or not, she described the whooshing curtains and slumped shut door and what not......yet in your view Maddie could have been left in her parents' room.
You'd have thought kate searched the entire flat including the other bedroom (her bedroom) before raising the alarm.

Was Kate lying, should we also discount this part of her disposition as well ?
Are we to assume she flown down those stairs back to the restaurant to alert her friends then said calmly in a low voice "Maddie's missing, they'd taken her" and it's not reasonable to assume she was screaming in panic?

Don't forget she recounts that scene of looking into Maddie's room from an ajar door many times on TV with expressive hands showing how the curtains whooshed open, and her shock at discovering Maddie gone from her bed.

If JT found her would she not be cadaverine contaminated?

How can you account for the cadaverine behind the couch and inside the cupboard, as Maddie can't have been in both places if she was moved immediately from where she was found. Did they not try to ascertain whether she was saveable or did they not try to revive her before deciding to dump her?

Which parent on suddenly finding their own flesh and blood child lying motionless ( died in their absence) is capable making a snap decision to cart her off straight away to be dumped like an object?
In the time span of 10-15 mins max between her being found and Gerry being sighted there's hardly any time to take stock of what happened - how she ended up dead lying where she was and was there anything they could do to help her - yet we are expected to believe that a bunch of mixed professionals including doctors were capable of making a snap decision just like that, just by a snap of finger to cart her off for disposal?

by Guest 09.04.14 21:38

sar wrote:
j.rob wrote:Then factor in that other holiday-makers were being asked to send in their photos of their own holidays that week to Team McCann and their acolytes. Now, why would that be, I wonder?? So Team McCann and friends can scrutinize who was there and when, perhaps? Plus find photos of the other Tapas children and establish who they were with? Plus establish whether anyone had footage of the entire kids' club group - complete with all the children which should obviously include Madeleine?

And why would Hodge's nephew respond to questions (from Tony Bennett?) that he had a photograph of his own children with Madeleine in the background (taken, on the final day?)

Little bit of a 'hot potato' the whole photograph business.

And why would Kate and Russell be taking video-footage of a child playing mini-tennis that was not their own child?

I reckon Team McCann were anxious to get hold of all the evidence they could that might incriminate their own version of what Madeleine was doing on that holiday.

Given all of the above (and there are many other red flags apart from these) I am pretty certain that *something* happened to Madeleine either on Sunday or Monday. *Something* that was serious enough for the team to concoct an elaborate and complicated series of alibis for practically the entire week.

Complete madness the whole thing, imo.
...yeah, why would someone need video of a child playing tennis that was not there own?... What could that achieve?

So they could pretend it was MBM playing tennis.

by HelenMeg 09.04.14 21:54

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
I dont think that is correct - your suggestion that the outside indication was not as certain as the inside ones. The dogs indicate or they dont - simple as that . There is the scent they are trained to find - or there is not. No 'maybe's.

It isn't my suggestion, it comes from this source, which indicates that actually you may be incorrect:

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

'PJ Summary Report:

- cadaver odour dog:
* in a flowerbed, the dog handler commented on the lightness of the scent detected

(In 'The Truth of the Lie', Gonçalo Amaral states that outside, Eddie gives two more alerts of cadaver odour, on the veranda of the couple's bedroom and also in a garden situated directly below it. Here, the bark is weaker, like a "could be", with some doubt, like a human shrugging their shoulders.

The 57-page PJ Report Summary makes no mention of cadaver odour being indicated on the veranda.)'

From Mccannfiles: In the evening, Portuguese and UK investigators begin their search of apartment 5A with Eddie and Keela.

Cadaver odour is indicated in the McCanns bedroom by the wardrobe, in the living room behind a sofa and a light scent indicated outside in a flowerbed. A blood indication is made behind the sofa.

What I am saying is that there is either a scent of death or there is no scent. You suggested it was not as certain outside - in fact it was just as certain that the scent existed outside - it was just 'lighter'. The dog still located the scent of death outside.
ETA I am not trying to be argumentative just that it is misleading to suggest that the outside indication was not as certain... it is certain

by Guest 09.04.14 22:00

There are theories, that the scent outside down in the little garden could well have been a diluted scent from upstairs, what with all the washing and cleaning going up there ...?

by ultimaThule 09.04.14 22:01

Ladyinred wrote:
sar wrote:
j.rob wrote:Then factor in that other holiday-makers were being asked to send in their photos of their own holidays that week to Team McCann and their acolytes. Now, why would that be, I wonder?? So Team McCann and friends can scrutinize who was there and when, perhaps? Plus find photos of the other Tapas children and establish who they were with? Plus establish whether anyone had footage of the entire kids' club group - complete with all the children which should obviously include Madeleine?

And why would Hodge's nephew respond to questions (from Tony Bennett?) that he had a photograph of his own children with Madeleine in the background (taken, on the final day?)

Little bit of a 'hot potato' the whole photograph business.

And why would Kate and Russell be taking video-footage of a child playing mini-tennis that was not their own child?

I reckon Team McCann were anxious to get hold of all the evidence they could that might incriminate their own version of what Madeleine was doing on that holiday.

Given all of the above (and there are many other red flags apart from these) I am pretty certain that *something* happened to Madeleine either on Sunday or Monday. *Something* that was serious enough for the team to concoct an elaborate and complicated series of alibis for practically the entire week.

Complete madness the whole thing, imo.
...yeah, why would someone need video of a child playing tennis that was not there own?... What could that achieve?

So they could pretend it was MBM playing tennis.

Exactly, Lir. Any of those 10 or 11 pretty little blonde British girls who enjoying their holidays at the Ocean Club could easily be mistaken for one another if caught on camera from a distance playing tennis - and even more so if one of them was wearing a pink hat of the type seen in what purports to be a photo of Madeleine on the tennis courts.

by Bishop Brennan 10.04.14 4:44

Carrry On Doctor wrote:
Something that I have not seen discussed is the willingness of everyone to agree to a story at such short notice. If we were to suppose that the 'incident' did happen on the 3rd (and panic ensued), for a 'pact' to be formed, it would seem unlikely that unanimous agreement and active participation would be agreed to there and then. Faced with the snap choice of whether to assist covering up a death, I would have expected quite different opinions on the best way to deal with it....with 'coming clean' being being a strong argument put forward.

It's a crucial point. Remember too that they were happy also to join forces and positively identify Murat as someone they saw on the night. This appeared to be a crude (and successful) attempt to shift suspicion to Murat. Again, who does that? And why? It was one of the most suspicious actions carried out by the T7.

by kimHager 10.04.14 6:13

im still not convinced they were all involved.IF the T7 were all involved i think only a select few knew the whole story, in my opinion that being JT, DP, and FP. im not sure if RO was really involved. Back on topic of Gerry's clothes, can cadaver odor be washed away? perhaps he had a pair of scrubs with him, and honestly i doubt he did....but Gerry wouldnt be the type to keep his dirty knickers out he is too smart they would be whooshed away.However kate being more emotionally unstable might keep those clothes for sentimental(?) reasons as last time holding maddy wearing them.Also Gerry dont seem too concerned with being made a suspect as most evidence suggests kate did something to her daughter.Thats bothered me some, everyone seemed to point to kate but i really think the key might lie with GM.Thats just my opinion.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.04.14 7:53

HelenMeg wrote:
Cadaver odour is indicated in the McCanns bedroom by the wardrobe, in the living room behind a sofa and a light scent indicated outside in a flowerbed. A blood indication is made behind the sofa.

What I am saying is that there is either a scent of death or there is no scent. You suggested it was not as certain outside - in fact it was just as certain that the scent existed outside - it was just 'lighter'. The dog still located the scent of death outside.
ETA I am not trying to be argumentative just that it is misleading to suggest that the outside indication was not as certain... it is certain

Misleading? I'm just quoting what Amaral wrote in his book.

'(In 'The Truth of the Lie', Gonçalo Amaral states that outside, Eddie gives two more alerts of cadaver odour, on the veranda of the couple's bedroom and also in a garden situated directly below it. Here, the bark is weaker, like a "could be", with some doubt, like a human shrugging their shoulders'

"could be" - not certain - means the same thing.

This isn't something I've made up, I am quoting directly from a source. You can call this 'misleading', but in my opinion anyone can read this quote and see that it's not just an interpretation of mine. It says in black and white 'the bark is weaker, like a "could be"'.

I'll end my point with this - you say that the cadaver scent in the flowerbed is certain, whereas Amaral says that it was a "could be". That's not me saying it, it is Amaral.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.04.14 8:00

aiyoyo wrote:
You seem very defensive over your dogma view and appear not to like being challenged.
But this one takes the cake.
Kate told the whole wide world in her Mockumetary she peeped into Maddie's room in the dark couldn't make out whether Maddie was on her bed or not, she described the whooshing curtains and slumped shut door and what not......yet in your view Maddie could have been left in her parents' room.
You'd have thought kate searched the entire flat including the other bedroom (her bedroom) before raising the alarm.

Was Kate lying, should we also discount this part of her disposition as well ?
Are we to assume she flown down those stairs back to the restaurant to alert her friends then said calmly in a low voice "Maddie's missing, they'd taken her" and it's not reasonable to assume she was screaming in panic?

Don't forget she recounts that scene of looking into Maddie's room from an ajar door many times on TV with expressive hands showing how the curtains whooshed open, and her shock at discovering Maddie gone from her bed.

If JT found her would she not be cadaverine contaminated?

How can you account for the cadaverine behind the couch and inside the cupboard, as Maddie can't have been in both places if she was moved immediately from where she was found. Did they not try to ascertain whether she was saveable or did they not try to revive her before deciding to dump her?

Which parent on suddenly finding their own flesh and blood child lying motionless ( died in their absence) is capable making a snap decision to cart her off straight away to be dumped like an object?
In the time span of 10-15 mins max between her being found and Gerry being sighted there's hardly any time to take stock of what happened - how she ended up dead lying where she was and was there anything they could do to help her - yet we are expected to believe that a bunch of mixed professionals including doctors were capable of making a snap decision just like that, just by a snap of finger to cart her off for disposal?

Aiyoyo, you're the one dishing out personal attacks, I'm just responding to questions and criticism. I'd reply to these, but I'm not playing a game of 'winning the internet', and I sense hostility on your part so I'll leave it there. My last reply to you was just me giving answers to all your questions. I don't know why you should think to call that being 'defensive'.

If I have a view then it's a 'dogma' view, while everyone else just has an opinion. Fine. That tells me all I need to know about you.

It seems like every time I put forward my view that Maddie died on the 3rd by accident that I'm met with hostile responses, and then amazingly get accused of being hostile myself, or of being defensive because I give my answers to the hostile responses. If that's the view of a vocal minority on this forum that's fine, I'll step back out of the way. I haven't 'pushed' a theory, I posted a short paragraph of about 2 sentences and since then have been responding to interrogation.

by aiyoyo 10.04.14 9:00

WLBTF,
Oh Lordie Lord,......ouch touchy !
Seems you're determined to have the last say, so be it ( when your theory is just a debatable matter).
You have a steadfast theory based on guessing this and that to fit in the theory then took offence when challenged.
I get the picture, fine.

by woodforthetrees 10.04.14 9:07

All these points are gret, but it still doesn't acocunt for the following:

1. Why is there no cadaver scent on Gerry? Surely, every clothing item of his from the moment the 'abduction' was raised, would be logged/stored by the police, especially after the scent was found in the hire car.
2. Did the cadaver dogs get taken through the T7 apartments? and on the T7's clothes? I can't find anythgin stating the dogs were used there as well, just 5a, the McCanns clothing and the hire car? If JT, DP or FP were any way involved with the disposal, there would be scent.

It would be great if anyone on here could shed a bit of light on this for me :-)

by Guest 10.04.14 9:19

The British sniffer dogs didn't come into the play until July 2007, woodforthetrees. The police wouldn't have had any reason to confiscate any clothes immediately upon Madeleine's disappearance.
In fact McCann / Madeleine clothing were being washed by the OC services on Saturday, May 9, if memory serves me.

Please have a look at the following link. It will tell you a lot, if not all you'd want to know about the dogs in apartment 5A and OTHER apartments in the same block:

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

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.04.14 9:33

aiyoyo wrote:WLBTF,
Oh Lordie Lord,......ouch touchy !
Seems you're determined to have the last say, so be it ( when your theory is just a debatable matter).
You have a steadfast theory based on guessing this and that to fit in the theory then took offence when challenged.
I get the picture, fine.

No, when 'challenged' I just responded with points to reinforce my hypothesis about the case - in the same way that everyone else does here. When you called my opinion a 'dogma' view and accused me of being defensive, I just explained myself. I've got no interest in 'last says', I'm just responding to your posts. You're using derogatory terms in an attempt to make me look bad - I don't know why you're doing it, but I'm not going to be dragged in any further. This is a thread about Gerry's clothes, so I'll shut up about this and let the discussions continue :)

by woodforthetrees 10.04.14 9:37

Thanks for the link, i'll take a look....

by aiyoyo 10.04.14 10:08

@WLBTS.
Equally I was pointing how your theory is not plausible if you want to take it the wrong way so be it.
I'm not interested in arguing with someone who's defensive by turning it around.
Lets agree to disagree and let it drop.

by mariola 10.04.14 12:33

wbts.don,t ever shut up.keep digging and don,t be put off by disruptors.

by kimHager 10.04.14 15:47

aiyoyo, in regards to your question about JT : If JT found her would she not be cadaverine contaminated?
JT gave alot of info in her rog statement about not having jeans and having to borrow RO's fleece on may 3 due to it being chilly out.coincedentally a stained pair of mens jeans and a fleece was found in the bag near airport...which with her little slip up of " when I carried her" says alot IMO. The clothing from the bag had congealed skin and hair with some dna that may have been linked to Maddy.

by HelenMeg 10.04.14 15:58

kimHager wrote:aiyoyo, in regards to your question about JT : If JT found her would she not be cadaverine contaminated?
JT gave alot of info in her rog statement about not having jeans and having to borrow RO's fleece on may 3 due to it being chilly out.coincedentally a stained pair of mens jeans and a fleece was found in the bag near airport...which with her little slip up of " when I carried her" says alot IMO. The clothing from the bag had congealed skin and hair with some dna that may have been linked to Maddy.

Hi Kim
are you able to recall or say who actually found the bag with the jeans / fleece? Can you remember if this was the bag handed in by Nancy Burridge?

Helen

by aiyoyo 10.04.14 16:19

kimHager wrote:aiyoyo, in regards to your question about JT : If JT found her would she not be cadaverine contaminated?
JT gave alot of info in her rog statement about not having jeans and having to borrow RO's fleece on may 3 due to it being chilly out.coincedentally a stained pair of mens jeans and a fleece was found in the bag near airport...which with her little slip up of " when I carried her" says alot IMO. The clothing from the bag had congealed skin and hair with some dna that may have been linked to Maddy.

The near-to-airport find is a red herring.
The dogs went through all the hol. friends apartments and no alerts were had. Also assuming we know what she'd on is equal to what was found even if the "find" isn't a red herring has no leg to stand on. WLBTS was only guessing JT found her. It's not a fact.

Personally I don't believe she died on the 3rd, not supported by any photo and the sudden change of arrangements on the 3rd are all red flags.

Hypothetically for argument sake it we grant it that JT found her, logic dictates she would not have touched or moved her, especially since Kate had just raised the alarm. More pertinently JT had no opportunity as according to statements she was in her apt attending to her sick child at the time Kate raised the alarm.

by Guest 10.04.14 16:32

aiyoyo wrote: [...] More pertinently JT had no opportunity as according to statements she was in her apt attending to her sick child at the time Kate raised the alarm.

***
There you have it ... winkwink

"according to statements" she was attending her sick child, just after ROB had managed to clean the little one, who'd been vomiting, as well as washing and changing the bedding in record time. I'm afraid, that I will just continue to take ever bit of statement from T9 with a good pinch of salt, until their [ever changing] utterings become coherent.

by HelenMeg 10.04.14 16:39

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
Cadaver odour is indicated in the McCanns bedroom by the wardrobe, in the living room behind a sofa and a light scent indicated outside in a flowerbed. A blood indication is made behind the sofa.

What I am saying is that there is either a scent of death or there is no scent. You suggested it was not as certain outside - in fact it was just as certain that the scent existed outside - it was just 'lighter'. The dog still located the scent of death outside.
ETA I am not trying to be argumentative just that it is misleading to suggest that the outside indication was not as certain... it is certain

Misleading? I'm just quoting what Amaral wrote in his book.

'(In 'The Truth of the Lie', Gonçalo Amaral states that outside, Eddie gives two more alerts of cadaver odour, on the veranda of the couple's bedroom and also in a garden situated directly below it. Here, the bark is weaker, like a "could be", with some doubt, like a human shrugging their shoulders'

"could be" - not certain - means the same thing.

This isn't something I've made up, I am quoting directly from a source. You can call this 'misleading', but in my opinion anyone can read this quote and see that it's not just an interpretation of mine. It says in black and white 'the bark is weaker, like a "could be"'.

I'll end my point with this - you say that the cadaver scent in the flowerbed is certain, whereas Amaral says that it was a "could be". That's not me saying it, it is Amaral.

OK OK - I'm not trying to argue with you or Amaral or anyone really. Just from my knowledge and dog training activities (I trained my springer with help from a Police dog handler) I understood that the dog would not react if the scent was not present. Therefore any 'woof' (if the dog is trained to indicate with a bark) indicates the presence of the scent. Therefore any reaction = cadaver scent. But, I see that it can be interpreted in a few ways and I am trying to accept that a dog could 'woof quietly' to mean '[ might be a scent'.. it just doesn't go with what I thought I knew. But as I'm not an expert I understand that I may have mis-interpreted things.... (not totally convinced though). Anyway, apologies to you for implying or saying that your statement was mis-leading. Sorry!!

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.04.14 16:39

aiyoyo wrote:
The near-to-airport find is a red herring.
The dogs went through all the hol. friends apartments and no alerts were had. Also assuming we know what she'd on is equal to what was found even if the "find" isn't a red herring has no leg to stand on. WLBTS was only guessing JT found her. It's not a fact.

Nice that you mention me again, and as you rightly point out, I've never said it was a fact. However, the main reasons I have for my guess is the time that JT slipped and said 'I carried her...' on the Panorama interview, and that she mentioned at length that she didn't take any jeans on holiday, though that question hadn't been asked at her rogatory interview.

aiyoyo wrote:
Personally I don't believe she died on the 3rd, not supported by any photo and the sudden change of arrangements on the 3rd are all red flags.

Hypothetically for argument sake it we grant it that JT found her, logic dictates she would not have touched or moved her, especially since Kate had just raised the alarm.

Logic dictates no such thing, it's your opinion only. There are many possibilities that allow JT to have moved her. Perhaps Kate was hysterical, and they needed to move the body into the bedroom, so Jane did it for her. Who knows? I'm not saying that I do. I'm saying that it is a possibility, and 'logic' does not dictate anything here.

aiyoyo wrote:
More pertinently JT had no opportunity as according to statements she was in her apt attending to her sick child at the time Kate raised the alarm.

If we are taking all the statements of the Tapas 9 at face value as the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then we really should just pack up and go home. Do you believe JT's account regarding the witnessing of the abductor carrying Madeleine across the road? I don't see how this point is pertinent at all.