The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

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.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Things I'm confused about....

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Things I'm confused about....

Post by SittingOnTheFence on 05.11.13 2:36

Hi, 
I'm new to the McCann case so please excuse me if I'm making nieve comments and / or going over old ground. 

Being intrigued by the current Amaral trial I have done a lot of reading over the last week and and consequently I have become hooked! As some people have already quoted, the McCann's actions have caused a 'home goal' in creating potential doubters. My questions / thoughts are;

Comments - The McCanns appear to be very smart people and equally the rest of the Tapas group. To me the staged abduction theory seems to be highly complex, too complex. Why would the McCanns not wait to make the announcement of Madeleine's abduction until the morning? Madeleine being abducted during the night when they were all sleeping, having had plenty to drink, didn't hear anything etc etc. Wouldn't this type of scenario have been easier for the McCanns to 'play out'? 

The 'blue case' - I've seen the photo taken when the police first arrived showing a case in the wardrobe where the dog had indicated cadaverine and a subsequent photo taken much later in the day, with the case gone, along with some cloths. Is it as simple that they just used that case to pack some belongings when moving to another apartment that night? The specific thread on this subject seemed to get a bit side tracked. Is there a definite statement somewhere in the PJ files relating to this missing case? Did the police directly ask the McCanns to provide the case shown in the photograph for forensic examination and / or for an explanation of where it is? I've seen statements where they ask questions to various people about a 'tennis' bag, but haven't found anything referring to 'the bag / case in this photo'? Ditto for the missing pink blanket (though I do admit that I did get sidetracked when trying to follow up on that issue), is there a statement where this officially asked and explained (or not)? Did the two items go missing at the same time?

Assuming the theory that Madeleine was in the case.... wouldn't that have been a huge risk by the McCanns; to stage the abduction at the time that they did, with Madeleine still in the apartment? How on earth would they have explained that one if she was found? Surely no intruder would go to the bother of hiding a body in such a way. It makes me think that the McCanns wouldn't be that stupid / huberous to take such a risk - or are the McCanns displaying what would be considered to be typical narcissistic traits?

My impression is that Gerry McCann seems to be by far the stronger of the two in the relationship, dominating Kate McCann; she would follow and do whatever he says, that he comes above all else. I would have thought that he would have wanted to have put himself as the one that found Madeleine to be missing. He would then be more in control, taking the brunt of the questioning etc in the subsequent investigation. Hmmm, maybe he's smarter and want's to be able to plead ignorance and blame it all on her if it's all found out to be a lie!! 

Question - would the case have masked the cadaverine smell? I'm told that it is very distinct and that once someone has experienced the smell they never forget it, especially the police and medical professionals - they immediately recognise it. Again, very high risk.

Another point. To me it seems unlikely that the rest of the group had any involvement or real awareness of what really happened to Madeleine. I could understand the group collaborating over frequency of checking on the children so they appear to be somewhat 'concerning' parents, limit any potential child neglect litigation, cover their arses so they don't lose their children their jobs etc etc. However, they don't seem to be that close a knit group in that they and the McCanns' are often separated in their daily activities, don't trust each other to check on their own children etc. Wouldn't the implications of a 'small white lie' over frequency of checks v a potential cover up of a dead child be too great an issue to not break the 'code of silence'? Family, hmmm maybe, but just acquaintances - I doubt it. I get the impression with Webster's statement that she wasn't trying to hold anything back, but rather the contrary when giving her thoughts about the possibility of the twins being sedated, providing an avenue for the police to investigate. Did the police attempt to take drug tests on the twins, if not why not? I would have thought that would have been desirable and that they would have been within their rights to do so? Kate McCann even posed the sedation question giving the police the opportunity to take it further.

Personally I have never warmed to the McCanns due to their personality. Like other's I find them outwardly cold, ungrateful and a 'better than thou' attitude. Despite all my reading, I still can't decide if their actions are due to them genuinely wanting to find Madeleine and being blind to the destruction they are causing, or, if they are trying to cover their arses.

SittingOnTheFence

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Okeydokey on 05.11.13 9:08

@SittingOnTheFence wrote:Hi, 
I'm new to the McCann case so please excuse me if I'm making nieve comments and / or going over old ground. 

Being intrigued by the current Amaral trial I have done a lot of reading over the last week and and consequently I have become hooked! As some people have already quoted, the McCann's actions have caused a 'home goal' in creating potential doubters. My questions / thoughts are;

Comments - The McCanns appear to be very smart people and equally the rest of the Tapas group. To me the staged abduction theory seems to be highly complex, too complex. Why would the McCanns not wait to make the announcement of Madeleine's abduction until the morning? Madeleine being abducted during the night when they were all sleeping, having had plenty to drink, didn't hear anything etc etc. Wouldn't this type of scenario have been easier for the McCanns to 'play out'? 

The 'blue case' - I've seen the photo taken when the police first arrived showing a case in the wardrobe where the dog had indicated cadaverine and a subsequent photo taken much later in the day, with the case gone, along with some cloths. Is it as simple that they just used that case to pack some belongings when moving to another apartment that night? The specific thread on this subject seemed to get a bit side tracked. Is there a definite statement somewhere in the PJ files relating to this missing case? Did the police directly ask the McCanns to provide the case shown in the photograph for forensic examination and / or for an explanation of where it is? I've seen statements where they ask questions to various people about a 'tennis' bag, but haven't found anything referring to 'the bag / case in this photo'? Ditto for the missing pink blanket (though I do admit that I did get sidetracked when trying to follow up on that issue), is there a statement where this officially asked and explained (or not)? Did the two items go missing at the same time?

Assuming the theory that Madeleine was in the case.... wouldn't that have been a huge risk by the McCanns; to stage the abduction at the time that they did, with Madeleine still in the apartment? How on earth would they have explained that one if she was found? Surely no intruder would go to the bother of hiding a body in such a way. It makes me think that the McCanns wouldn't be that stupid / huberous to take such a risk - or are the McCanns displaying what would be considered to be typical narcissistic traits?

My impression is that Gerry McCann seems to be by far the stronger of the two in the relationship, dominating Kate McCann; she would follow and do whatever he says, that he comes above all else. I would have thought that he would have wanted to have put himself as the one that found Madeleine to be missing. He would then be more in control, taking the brunt of the questioning etc in the subsequent investigation. Hmmm, maybe he's smarter and want's to be able to plead ignorance and blame it all on her if it's all found out to be a lie!! 

Question - would the case have masked the cadaverine smell? I'm told that it is very distinct and that once someone has experienced the smell they never forget it, especially the police and medical professionals - they immediately recognise it. Again, very high risk.

Another point. To me it seems unlikely that the rest of the group had any involvement or real awareness of what really happened to Madeleine. I could understand the group collaborating over frequency of checking on the children so they appear to be somewhat 'concerning' parents, limit any potential child neglect litigation, cover their arses so they don't lose their children their jobs etc etc. However, they don't seem to be that close a knit group in that they and the McCanns' are often separated in their daily activities, don't trust each other to check on their own children etc. Wouldn't the implications of a 'small white lie' over frequency of checks v a potential cover up of a dead child be too great an issue to not break the 'code of silence'? Family, hmmm maybe, but just acquaintances - I doubt it. I get the impression with Webster's statement that she wasn't trying to hold anything back, but rather the contrary when giving her thoughts about the possibility of the twins being sedated, providing an avenue for the police to investigate. Did the police attempt to take drug tests on the twins, if not why not? I would have thought that would have been desirable and that they would have been within their rights to do so? Kate McCann even posed the sedation question giving the police the opportunity to take it further.

Personally I have never warmed to the McCanns due to their personality. Like other's I find them outwardly cold, ungrateful and a 'better than thou' attitude. Despite all my reading, I still can't decide if their actions are due to them genuinely wanting to find Madeleine and being blind to the destruction they are causing, or, if they are trying to cover their arses.
Excellent post!


To answer this one point: there are two possibilities from a theoretical point of view -

1. KMcC genuinely could not find MMcC e.g. because she had fallen behind the sofa, or had wandered into the garden area. She rushes back to the restaurant and causes a commotion observed by waiters and DW - in that case they can't put off the staged abduction.

2.  MMcC died before 3rd May. In that case they may have decided that it was necessary to stage the abduction in the evening. A night-time abduction requires strong evidential corroboration (didn't you lock the patio doors...didn't you hear the shutters come up?) whereas a scenario of regular checks by the group creates a persuasive group alibi and the potential for JT type sightings.

If 2 is true though, speculatively that means something went wrong on the night, I think, leading to the need to write out the timelines.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by suzyjohnson on 05.11.13 10:17

@SittingOnTheFence wrote:!) To me the staged abduction theory seems to be highly complex, too complex. Why would the McCanns not wait to make the announcement of Madeleine's abduction until the morning? Madeleine being abducted during the night when they were all sleeping, having had plenty to drink, didn't hear anything etc etc. Wouldn't this type of scenario have been easier for the McCanns to 'play out'? 

2) The 'blue case'  Is it as simple that they just used that case to pack some belongings when moving to another apartment that night? Is there a definite statement somewhere in the PJ files relating to this missing case? Did the police directly ask the McCanns to provide the case shown in the photograph for forensic examination and / or for an explanation of where it is? I've seen statements where they ask questions to various people about a 'tennis' bag, but haven't found anything referring to 'the bag / case in this photo'? Ditto for the missing pink blanket. is there a statement where this officially asked and explained (or not)? Did the two items go missing at the same time?

3) I would have thought that he would have wanted to have put himself as the one that found Madeleine to be missing. He would then be more in control, taking the brunt of the questioning etc in the subsequent investigation. 

4) However, they don't seem to be that close a knit group in that they and the McCanns' are often separated in their daily activities, don't trust each other to check on their own children etc. Wouldn't the implications of a 'small white lie' over frequency of checks v a potential cover up of a dead child be too great an issue to not break the 'code of silence'? Family, hmmm maybe, but just acquaintances - I doubt it.

5) Did the police attempt to take drug tests on the twins, if not why not? I would have thought that would have been desirable and that they would have been within their rights to do so? Kate McCann even posed the sedation question giving the police the opportunity to take it further.

1) IMO much of what happened that evening happened on impulse without careful planning. Also both the McCanns had alibis for the time they were at the Tapas. 

2) Amaral wanted to know the whereabouts of the blue bag. If the Smith sighting was MM and if she was being carried by GM, then, clearly, initially the blue bag was not used at this time. And of course it is photographed in the wardrobe. Possibly, it was used at a later time, or a later date, likewise the pink blanket.  

3) Then again, he wouldn't want to be the prime suspect. Especially if Mr Smith had just seen him. If KM had gone to check at 9.30 pm (which was her turn) then it would have been GM's turn at 10 pm. As it was, MO went to 5A at 9.30 pm instead, and reported that all was well, thus, in a sense, giving both parents an alibi for this time.

4) There is a possibility that others in the group also wished to cover something up, perhaps one of them gave MM a sedative? Or their own children were also sedated? Or perhaps they did not want to be charged with neglect?
 
5) Initially the police were focused on the abduction theory. KM did not mention the possibility of sedation until sometime later, iirc, the McCanns had the twins tested several months down the line, probably by then any trace of drugs was already gone.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by pennylane on 05.11.13 10:54

I believe the crime was concocted rapidly, and that they found Maddie deceased, after they raised the initial alarm. I believe she had been sedated, and may have had other health problems also, and this is why Gerry took the enormous risk of taking the body away from the premises. The alternative would have meant immediate arrest in a foreign country, the loss of the twins, and careers and reputations in tatters, and no doubt jail time!  Whilst everyone was out searching, they stayed hauled up in the apartment plotting and back fitting their stories the entire night, even though it looked very damning, because they had no choice.  (all imo).

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Sockpuppet on 05.11.13 10:59

@pennylane wrote:I believe the crime was concocted rapidly, and that they found Maddie deceased, after they raised the initial alarm. I believe she had been sedated, and may have had other health problems also, and this is why Gerry took the enormous risk of taking the body away from the premises. The alternative would have meant immediate arrest in a foreign country, the loss of the twins, and careers and reputations in tatters, and no doubt jail time!  Whilst everyone was out searching, they stayed hauled up in the apartment plotting and back fitting their stories the entire night, even though it looked very damning, because they had no choice.  (all imo).
To make it worse for GM, when they found Maddie deceased people outside of the Tapas group were already aware of her disappearance and forming a search party.  So his options were two, and he took the route of self preservation.

____________________


Sockpuppet

Posts : 188
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by pennylane on 05.11.13 11:01

@Sockpuppet wrote:
@pennylane wrote:I believe the crime was concocted rapidly, and that they found Maddie deceased, after they raised the initial alarm. I believe she had been sedated, and may have had other health problems also, and this is why Gerry took the enormous risk of taking the body away from the premises. The alternative would have meant immediate arrest in a foreign country, the loss of the twins, and careers and reputations in tatters, and no doubt jail time!  Whilst everyone was out searching, they stayed hauled up in the apartment plotting and back fitting their stories the entire night, even though it looked very damning, because they had no choice.  (all imo).
To make it worse for GM, when they found Maddie deceased people outside of the Tapas group were already aware of her disappearance and forming a search party.  So his options were two, and he took the route of self preservation.
Exactly Sockpuppet!thumbup

I also believe Gerry ran into the Smith family, and feared he would be rumbled for sure, so Jane was brought in to give him a solid alibi whilst the abduction was allegedly going down.

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by galena on 05.11.13 15:41

HI SOTF.  I think this is a great first post and you raise some interesting points which have been puzzling me as well.  I've always found it hard to believe that the whole Tapas group was involved in some sort of conspiracy to cover up a child's death, and originally speculated that Kate and Gerry acted alone and the others just joined ranks out of a British sense of solidarity, not really sure what was going on, but worried that their friends were in danger of being framed by the nasty foreign police. 

Perhaps there was no conspiracy at all and Gerry acted on his own - with even Kate being perhaps not wholly party to what as going on at the start?

 I spent a lot of time on the fence in 2007 and understand  exactly why you are there.  Whatever way you look at this case it's not straightforward and I'm beginning to fear that we will never know the answer.

galena

Posts : 286
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by tracey1270 on 05.11.13 16:12

I personally don't  think the Smithman sighting is relevant and believe Madeleine came to her death on the 2nd, why did KM Mention Madeleine crying when that looks really bad considering they left the children alone again?  It makes no sense to me that anyone would mention this, unless of course she was trying to put Madeleine alive at that time when she wasn't so to her this was the lesser of two evils? There is just something not right about that last photo, she looks more like 2 close to 3 or just 3 than a child nearly 4? Other photos show her looking older, I also do not think they are all involved but one or two of them know what happened.  just a thought though

tracey1270

Posts : 38
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Okeydokey on 05.11.13 23:33

@Sockpuppet wrote:
@pennylane wrote:I believe the crime was concocted rapidly, and that they found Maddie deceased, after they raised the initial alarm. I believe she had been sedated, and may have had other health problems also, and this is why Gerry took the enormous risk of taking the body away from the premises. The alternative would have meant immediate arrest in a foreign country, the loss of the twins, and careers and reputations in tatters, and no doubt jail time!  Whilst everyone was out searching, they stayed hauled up in the apartment plotting and back fitting their stories the entire night, even though it looked very damning, because they had no choice.  (all imo).
To make it worse for GM, when they found Maddie deceased people outside of the Tapas group were already aware of her disappearance and forming a search party.  So his options were two, and he took the route of self preservation.
Theoretically, it makes sense of quite a few things e.g. the delay in calling the police, the Smith sighting, the conflict over timings and the hurried timeline concoction.  It also explains why they were able to behave normally at the table. 

The main problem is compressing everything into such a tight timeline. But it is possible.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Sockpuppet on 05.11.13 23:44

@Okeydokey wrote:Theoretically, it makes sense of quite a few things e.g. the delay in calling the police, the Smith sighting, the conflict over timings and the hurried timeline concoction.  It also explains why they were able to behave normally at the table. 

The main problem is compressing everything into such a tight timeline. But it is possible.
The Tapas bar staff statements show that contrary to what the Tapas group have said, they were possibly already searching for a missing Maddie after 9:30pm.  And the police are not called until 10:40pm.  So, I don't really think its that tight a timeline.

____________________


Sockpuppet

Posts : 188
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Okeydokey on 06.11.13 1:45

@Sockpuppet wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:Theoretically, it makes sense of quite a few things e.g. the delay in calling the police, the Smith sighting, the conflict over timings and the hurried timeline concoction.  It also explains why they were able to behave normally at the table. 

The main problem is compressing everything into such a tight timeline. But it is possible.
The Tapas bar staff statements show that contrary to what the Tapas group have said, they were possibly already searching for a missing Maddie after 9:30pm.  And the police are not called until 10:40pm.  So, I don't really think its that tight a timeline.
I was thinking more about the sightings of GMcC in the apartments area during the 9.30pm-10.40pm period.

So according to this theory KMcC's check would have been at 9.30pm-ish and presumably that's when she couldn't find MMcC.  The MO visit was then a later concoction on that basis.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Guest on 06.11.13 20:54

@pennylane wrote:I believe the crime was concocted rapidly, and that they found Maddie deceased, after they raised the initial alarm. I believe she had been sedated, and may have had other health problems also, and this is why Gerry took the enormous risk of taking the body away from the premises. The alternative would have meant immediate arrest in a foreign country, the loss of the twins, and careers and reputations in tatters, and no doubt jail time!  Whilst everyone was out searching, they stayed hauled up in the apartment plotting and back fitting their stories the entire night, even though it looked very damning, because they had no choice.  (all imo).
The following is all hypothetical, but Pennylane has outlined what I'm inclined to assume happened as I simply cannot contemplate that they all sat happy and relaxed over dinner knowing Madeleine was dead. It's inhuman.

Plus it's also the most logical and simple explanation so the old Occam's razor is whetted successfully.  However,  if the McCanns were at the dinner table at 8.30, and the grim discovery was made around 9.15/9.20, and the tragic little body whisked away soon afterwards by a panicking Gerry, I can't see that the cadaverine would have had sufficient time to develop, 45 minutes at most.

This has been bothering me, and I've done a little research. It would appear that the shortest amount of time after death for cadaverine to become detectable by a dog is about one and a half hours.

http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Hicks on 06.11.13 21:32

Dee Coy wrote:
@pennylane wrote:I believe the crime was concocted rapidly, and that they found Maddie deceased, after they raised the initial alarm. I believe she had been sedated, and may have had other health problems also, and this is why Gerry took the enormous risk of taking the body away from the premises. The alternative would have meant immediate arrest in a foreign country, the loss of the twins, and careers and reputations in tatters, and no doubt jail time!  Whilst everyone was out searching, they stayed hauled up in the apartment plotting and back fitting their stories the entire night, even though it looked very damning, because they had no choice.  (all imo).
The following is all hypothetical, but Pennylane has outlined what I'm inclined to assume happened as I simply cannot contemplate that they all sat happy and relaxed over dinner knowing Madeleine was dead. It's inhuman.

Plus it's also the most logical and simple explanation so the old Occam's razor is whetted successfully.  However,  if the McCanns were at the dinner table at 8.30, and the grim discovery was made around 9.15/9.20, and the tragic little body whisked away soon afterwards by a panicking Gerry, I can't see that the cadaverine would have had sufficient time to develop, 45 minutes at most.

This has been bothering me, and I've done a little research. It would appear that the shortest amount of time after death for cadaverine to become detectable by a dog is about one and a half hours.

http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
Is it possible then that as soon as the McCann's left the apartment at 8.30 (could had been earlier) Madeleine got up, had an accident behind the sofa whilst looking out of the window and lay there till the 9.30 check?
I don't believe GM actually went into the bedroom, just listened perhaps. I have read somewhere( can't find it now!) that GM was seen listening by the wall of the bedroom.
I keep going back to the Carpenter's statement, Mrs C heard someone calling Madeleine's name around 9.30. This is when MO went to check, I think he found her. Madeleine was probably removed a short while later so enough time for cadaverine to become detectable.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Guest on 06.11.13 21:35

@ Dee Coy: If you read other reports, e.g. Grimes himself, you'll see that cadaver dogs detect cadaver within minutes from death.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Guest on 06.11.13 22:21

Châtelaine wrote:@ Dee Coy: If you read other reports, e.g. Grimes himself, you'll see that cadaver dogs detect cadaver within minutes from death.
Thanks, Chatelaine, if this is right it makes things a lot clearer in my head.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by SittingOnTheFence on 07.11.13 1:18

The dogs indicating cadaverine has also been bugging me - that's the major piece of evidence that's leading me to believe that the McCann's are involved. However, looking at it from a defence standpoint to try and eliminate the evidence, what are the forensic cross contamination implications of KMCC being a GP and attending to patients that have died, and thus her cloths being contaminated with cadaverine - which I understand that they have already stated in their defence. I understand that cadaverine is very easily transferred when close to a cadava, as it's a mixture of gases contamination can occur without even touching but I haven't been able to find much / anything about cross contamination, nor if it still remains when clothes are washed - which if that is the case then it would add to the MCC's defence. Apparently the dog's can still detect blood even if the cloths have been washed numerous times. 

Would cross contamination be enough of a defence to cover all the positive hits; car, apartment, cloths, toy etc by the dog? Given that GP's wear their day to day cloths to work, could there be cross contamination of certain items of KMCC's clothing onto the other areas?

I've read a report that states that it is possible for the dogs to differentiate between cadavas - that each cadava has a unique scent as far as the dog is concerned and when tested, dogs were able to correctly identify a specific cadava amongst many. 

Quote from: http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post222503.html#p222503
TWO 

"Absolutely untrue I?m afraid that a dog cannot differentiate the smell of a certain required cadaver, each dog has a purpose many dogs / handlers have been used it is just that the 2 UK dogs were more experienced , actually the best available at this time in their field of Cadaver . 

Using details from all the dogs and they are all able to "smell just Maddie" if a scent was supplied either Cadaver or living by the way , it can be with no doubt whether the final analysis would be the expected victim or not. 

You would be wrong to under estimate why these spaniels are so very much in demand - so very expensive , a very very reliable form of evidence collection and along with other "required items" can be used in court enough to sway a conviction. 

That?s as long as the other required items are also in place of course which the sniffers may also have helped gain of course , very useful tools to help close a case." 


It's unclear to me if when searching for the cadaverine and the follow up search for blood if the dogs were looking specifically for Madeleine's scent or just a scent in general - can anyone clarify this?

Another separate issue based on timelines and window of opportunity to move the body. The elucid suitcase / bag .... it was in the wardrobe when the police first arrived and took photos but had been removed prior to the next set of photos (the next day?). David Payne (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm) states that the MCC's moved into his appartment that night / morning and that they all went to bed at about 04:00 / 04:30am. He woke up a few hours later to find that the MCC's were already up and had been out searching... or so he assumes!!!!??!!? Do you know if anyone has followed up on this?

Quote:
"The Police had left err the twins had been, at this stage, moved into err into our apartment, and we made beds up on the floor for Kate and Gerry in our apartment and we must have, you know, err gone into bedrooms around about you know four, four thirty around that time. We err slept for a couple of hours, we woke up to find that you know Kate and Gerry had already been out looking you know err for Madeleine err and then we were obviously waiting for things to happen, you know, quite frustrated, and err you know and then certain people arrived outside again you know from, from the err Police and err at that stage err yeah I,"

SittingOnTheFence

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Okeydokey on 07.11.13 1:58

@SittingOnTheFence wrote:The dogs indicating cadaverine has also been bugging me - that's the major piece of evidence that's leading me to believe that the McCann's are involved. However, looking at it from a defence standpoint to try and eliminate the evidence, what are the forensic cross contamination implications of KMCC being a GP and attending to patients that have died, and thus her cloths being contaminated with cadaverine - which I understand that they have already stated in their defence. I understand that cadaverine is very easily transferred when close to a cadava, as it's a mixture of gases contamination can occur without even touching but I haven't been able to find much / anything about cross contamination, nor if it still remains when clothes are washed - which if that is the case then it would add to the MCC's defence. Apparently the dog's can still detect blood even if the cloths have been washed numerous times. 

Would cross contamination be enough of a defence to cover all the positive hits; car, apartment, cloths, toy etc by the dog? Given that GP's wear their day to day cloths to work, could there be cross contamination of certain items of KMCC's clothing onto the other areas?

I've read a report that states that it is possible for the dogs to differentiate between cadavas - that each cadava has a unique scent as far as the dog is concerned and when tested, dogs were able to correctly identify a specific cadava amongst many. 

Quote from: http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post222503.html#p222503
TWO 

"Absolutely untrue I?m afraid that a dog cannot differentiate the smell of a certain required cadaver, each dog has a purpose many dogs / handlers have been used it is just that the 2 UK dogs were more experienced , actually the best available at this time in their field of Cadaver . 

Using details from all the dogs and they are all able to "smell just Maddie" if a scent was supplied either Cadaver or living by the way , it can be with no doubt whether the final analysis would be the expected victim or not. 

You would be wrong to under estimate why these spaniels are so very much in demand - so very expensive , a very very reliable form of evidence collection and along with other "required items" can be used in court enough to sway a conviction. 

That?s as long as the other required items are also in place of course which the sniffers may also have helped gain of course , very useful tools to help close a case." 


It's unclear to me if when searching for the cadaverine and the follow up search for blood if the dogs were looking specifically for Madeleine's scent or just a scent in general - can anyone clarify this?

Another separate issue based on timelines and window of opportunity to move the body. The elucid suitcase / bag .... it was in the wardrobe when the police first arrived and took photos but had been removed prior to the next set of photos (the next day?). David Payne (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm) states that the MCC's moved into his appartment that night / morning and that they all went to bed at about 04:00 / 04:30am. He woke up a few hours later to find that the MCC's were already up and had been out searching... or so he assumes!!!!??!!? Do you know if anyone has followed up on this?

Quote:
"The Police had left err the twins had been, at this stage, moved into err into our apartment, and we made beds up on the floor for Kate and Gerry in our apartment and we must have, you know, err gone into bedrooms around about you know four, four thirty around that time. We err slept for a couple of hours, we woke up to find that you know Kate and Gerry had already been out looking you know err for Madeleine err and then we were obviously waiting for things to happen, you know, quite frustrated, and err you know and then certain people arrived outside again you know from, from the err Police and err at that stage err yeah I,"
As far as I know K& G have never made the claim of cadaver GP contact directly themselves. I think it came through relatives (possibly echoed by the Great Clarence himself).

Relatives always offer deniability when required. :)

I think it is a pretty absurd claim. She was only a part time GP. I think possibly as little as one day per week.

I agree any Police officer worth his/her salt would be looking at that 4am walkabout very closely.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by SittingOnTheFence on 07.11.13 2:12

You're right, my bad.... it looks like the GP / dead body response was unsubstantiated media hype. 

 [url=http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078050/Rebuttal of "Fact" 30#Katehasbeenclosetosixbodiesinlasttwoweeksatwork]http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078050/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2030#Katehasbeenclosetosixbodiesinlasttwoweeksatwork[/url]

Wow, that's not going to be easy for them to explain away.

SittingOnTheFence

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Curioser on 09.11.13 4:58

Hi Sitter, you sound sensible. 

At the risk of blowing my own horn I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of this:
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7822-theory-purported-by-curioser-title-changed-from-any-advice-etc

The thread got derailed in the end and I've been off the air so I haven't had time to get it back on track, but the early pages are good I think.

____________________
I have no direct knowledge of the case. I'm just reading the files. It's all speculation. Don't sue me!

Curioser

Posts : 166
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by SittingOnTheFence on 09.11.13 14:12

Hi Curioser, 
Thanks for your comments. Wow that was a lot to read and try to take in - you have done a lot more reading then I have! I need to spend more time going through each of your points in more detail but I've expanded on a couple of points that I picked up on. Please note that at the moment I'm trying to keep scenarios really really simple so not to add to my current confusion, so I'm trying to prove or disprove what has been stated within interviews.

Following your comments on 'blood, cleaning the floor, curtains etc. I've been looking at pediatric deaths from short falls - this is taking that assumption that Madeleine died as a result of falling from the sofa, possibly after hearing her dad talking outside - the hypothesis made by Amaral. From what I've found it seems that the medical profession are split as to if death from such a fall is likely or not (great!). However, a recently published report (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/6/1213.full.pdf+html) summerises numeous studies and concludes that it is very rare; "CONCLUSIONS. The best current estimate of the mortality rate for short falls affecting infants and young children is 0.48 deaths per 1 million young children per year.. ". The report does state however, "When the 13 death certificates were reviewed, however, 2 cases were attributed to suffocation and the “fall” was an event that preceded suffocation, rather than the direct cause of death". keeping my thoughts on what could have happened very simple, Amaral could be right; Madeleine fell, hit her head, landed awkwardly due to the small gap between the sofa and the wall - head down with her body pushing onto her head, possibly head back (broken neck) or head under blocking her airway and thus suffocating. This freak accident could have happened with or without being sedated (still very sleepy), the knock on the head may or maynot have been such that it caused external bleeding; it could have caused internal bleeding, concussion, vomiting (also known secondary causes of death). So this scenario does support the dogs detection of cadaverine, the current lack of positive blood DNA forensics and mutes the sedation aspect. Such a death would require little, if any, cleaning, so less time is required towards that aspect of "a cover up". 

It was a cold night. If the floor, walls did have to be cleaned of any evidence then I suspect that they would dry fairly quickly ie. cleaning efforts be unnoticeable. Curtains? I think it would be evident that someone had wet / cleaned them? I'm not sure, as it would depend on the amount of blood. 

I think you raised a very good point about the clothes used to remove Madeleine being in the bag / wardrobe and hence the positive marker by the dog. To further add to that. To suddenly change your clothes during the course of the evening, without explanation, would seem odd to those around you. But as mentioned above and in some statements, it was cold and people were going back to their apartments to get warm clothing. It would be easy to put a fleece / jumper / jacket on to hide the fact that you had changed clothes underneath. I'm going to follow that up more.

Your theory involves conspiracy between the tapas 9, excluding Webster. Unless one of them was directly involved in Madeleine's death I still don't believe that the group were privy to any coverup. Why would they? If they believed the death to be an accident why would they go along with an abduction story? Ditto and even more so if they believed that it was a non-accidental death. In respect to Madeleine's death they have done nothing wrong, they are not BFF's, they risk far more by assisting the MCCanns in such an action then by telling the truth. One of them would have cracked under the pressure by now. If one of the tapas 9 was directly involved in the death, judging by the MCCann's personalities I would think it more likely that they would have apportioned all blame onto them. 

More comments to come....

SittingOnTheFence

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by SittingOnTheFence on 09.11.13 18:18

aaagh I've just done a complex post and it's gone - someone has abducted it!!!

SittingOnTheFence

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by galena on 09.11.13 19:22

@SittingOnTheFence wrote:aaagh I've just done a complex post and it's gone - someone has abducted it!!!
This happens to me all the time - many times I have pressed send only to come back later and find a lovingly crafted post has disappeared never to be seen again huh

galena

Posts : 286
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by aquila on 09.11.13 19:23

@galena wrote:
@SittingOnTheFence wrote:aaagh I've just done a complex post and it's gone - someone has abducted it!!!
This happens to me all the time - many times I have pressed send only to come back later and find a lovingly crafted post has disappeared never to be seen again huh
I used to curse and then I found out it was in 'drafts' - not lost at all.

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by SittingOnTheFence on 09.11.13 19:29

THANKS - got it back!!!


Quote "The tapas 9 come to grips with what has happened. They know that there are child neglect laws in Portugal and are unaware that there has to be intent to harm and/or they can’t afford for there to be an autopsy because the children are sedated and they have used inappropriate medication on their kids, there would be evidence of child abuse or something else. This would result in them losing their license to practice – possibly all the doctors. At any rate it would be a huge scandal."

The Paynes & Webster were using a baby monitor so they know they had broken no laws. Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brian where with their children, that night, due to illness, so they know they had broken no laws. That leaves the MCCanns and Oldfields. The Oldfields locked their windows and doors, there was no abduction / death, so they, their children, wouldn't be under investigation. The "baby listening service" that the Warner group offered at some of it's resorts was no different to the check system that the Tapas 9 were performing (do they just "listen" or perform a physical check (need to check that out))? So the MCCanns, Oldfields, the Tapas 9, would think that they have broken no laws (probably why the MCCanns have never admitted that they did no wrong in leaving the children alone). And, as you comment, Amaral subsequently states that the MCCanns had broken no laws because there was no intent to leave their children in danger. 

Sedation of a child doesn't seem to be an uncommon practice - plenty of articles on the internet with parents discussing / admitting the practice, even DR's. If any of the other children had also been sedated - so what (to be blunt) - no harm has become of them so their parents would not be in trouble if, big if, they were ever tested. The Tapas 7 would / were just considered witnesses. 

So, all that said, would they really all agree or judge that the risk and consequences of being party to the unlawful act of concealment of a dead body is less that of a "huge scandal"? It just doesn't add up to me. 

I do agree with you that the medication used to sedate maybe an issue, death involving sedation would / could be considered involuntary manslaughter (eg. Kamryn Gerken http://www.toledoblade.com/Culture/2010/11/14/At-the-end-of-their-rope-some-parents-sedate-their-babies.html). Also interesting to note.... 

"Personnel from Henry County Hospital described for the jury on Wednesday how Kamryn was lifeless, cold, and becoming stiff when her mother rushed her into the emergency room about 1:30 p.m. Aug. 15, 2007. [...] Under cross-examination by defense attorney Dave Klucas, Dr. Beisser said it would generally take two to three hours for rigor mortis to begin setting in for a body that had been inside a home kept at room temperature". http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2010/08/27/Henry-County-mom-found-guilty-in-drug-overdose-death-of-toddler-daughter.html.  
Early postmortum changes and time of death:  http://forensicmd.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/early-postmortem-changes1.pdf)
Under the above circumstances I would conclude that is plausible for the MCCann's to panic thinking that they would be charged with involuntary manslaughter. And, as per above that this would probably be heightened if the period between death and Madeleine being discovered was lengthy - an hour between Gerry and Kate's visits, even longer if Gerry never went into the bedroom to visually check on the children but just listened (went to the toilet and back out again). Kate had stated that she wouldn't have gone into the bedroom if it wasn't for the position of the door; common practice?? So assuming the timings are true, Madeleine could have been dead for 1h 30m. Being Dr's the MCCanns could have a reasonable idea from the 'condition' of Madeleine as to when she could have died, as would the police, ambulance, hospital staff and eventual postmortem - that the death was not 'recent' and she had been sedated. PANIC! (no sedation=no panic, it's a tragic accident, Oldfield admitted that he didn't physically check Madeleine and postmortems can't be 100% accurate on time of death). If sedated, it's reasonable to assume that Kate would have been the one to give the sedation, probably having discussed with Gerry to increase the dosage due to previous crying incidences, Kate was the one that found Madeleine and initiated the cover up.

"there would be evidence of child abuse or something else"
All of them being involved in child abuse and thus all needing to be part of the cover up - that's way beyond my scope!

SittingOnTheFence

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Things I'm confused about....

Post by Guest on 09.11.13 19:48

I'd like to question the cleaning woman again, the one who came on the Wednesday morning.
She stated that one of the cots was in the master bedroom.
McCanns have been denying this.
I would, however, also want to know if the bed in the children's room under the window was crumpled.
To be precise, which beds she made and/or changed.
If there is already such information available, I would appreciate to be led that way. TA

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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