Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a

Hicks wrote:Perhaps the clothes Madeleine wore in the last photo. Pink/peach smock top, white cotton shorts. Remember Kate thought that maybe this outfit caught the abductors attention.


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

I can't believe the tripe that KM comes up with.

Page 65 of Madeleine: "I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same."

These are not the words of a 'normal' mother of a nearly 4 year old, imo. 

Madeleine had, according to Kate, attended the kids' club on Thursday morning. Madeleine's group 'had gone down to the beach for their 'mini-sail'activity. We heard later that they'd been on a speedboat as well as a dinghy. Fiona told me she had spotted Ella there but not Madeleine.'

But no mention in Kate's book about how Madeleine had enjoyed the mini-sailing or the speedboat activities that morning. Had she come back freezing cold - given it was quite a cool day with a strong wind? That would be pretty much fleece weather if you were out on a boat, I would have thought. And mini-sailing in a force 4 wind would be quite challenging, I would think. 

Instead we just have Madeleine striding ahead of Kate happily swinging her bare arms to and fro in an outfit which apparently may have 'tempted' the abductor.

How insufferable this woman is.

PeterMac wrote:

Hicks wrote:The McCann's clearly state that Madeleine was wearing this outfit early afternoon on the 3rd.
I wonder if there are any references to what Madeleine was wearing on that afternoon ? Any of the witness statements ? Nannies? Tapas 9?. Was anyone asked I wonder

I think you will find that no one saw Madeleine on 3rd, which is why the forged Last Photo is so important to them.
Tapas group were shunted off to the Paraiso,  Kate went running - past the Paraiso, Gerry had his Achilles tendon afternoon off,
and then everyone is back in the apartment before anyone comes back from the Paraiso.
Lots of strange coincidences ?

Someone saw her though didnt they ? And he was err, umm, he was at errrrr, paynes to err ummm tell us

plebgate wrote:@justthinking (the one with the double T in name)

There is another poster here, Ultima Thule, who uses bold lettering when addressing another poster.   I notice you are doing the same.   Is there some reason for needing to bold another posters name all the time?

Seriously?

It was me who bolded the usernames in that post and that post alone (not all the time, feel free to check) because the post was about the similar usernames and I was highlighting them by using bold. I would normally just use the quote function. 

Now I don't want to get dragged into an off topic argument about who can and can't use bold for usernames. I'm here to discuss the case  .

j.rob wrote:

Hicks wrote:Perhaps the clothes Madeleine wore in the last photo. Pink/peach smock top, white cotton shorts. Remember Kate thought that maybe this outfit caught the abductors attention.


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

I can't believe the tripe that KM comes up with.

Page 65 of Madeleine: "I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same."

These are not the words of a 'normal' mother of a nearly 4 year old, imo. 

Madeleine had, according to Kate, attended the kids' club on Thursday morning. Madeleine's group 'had gone down to the beach for their 'mini-sail'activity. We heard later that they'd been on a speedboat as well as a dinghy. Fiona told me she had spotted Ella there but not Madeleine.'

But no mention in Kate's book about how Madeleine had enjoyed the mini-sailing or the speedboat activities that morning. Had she come back freezing cold - given it was quite a cool day with a strong wind? That would be pretty much fleece weather if you were out on a boat, I would have thought. And mini-sailing in a force 4 wind would be quite challenging, I would think. 

Instead we just have Madeleine striding ahead of Kate happily swinging her bare arms to and fro in an outfit which apparently may have 'tempted' the abductor.

How insufferable this woman is.

Definitely Weird, or part of the script.

The McCanns sent all of their dirty clothing to the laundry on the 5th May 2007.
A real WTF moment imo. No parent would have their missing child's clothing washed:
a) Because Madeleine's smell would be on hers.
b) Because the police might need them.
Just like Kate's bewilderment that washing cuddle cat provoked head-shaking disbelieve the McCanns don't seem to even think about keeping Madeleine's clothes so that they can smell them and feel close to her and that's so not normal.

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

Also on 5th May 2007, two days after the announcement of Madeleine's disappearance, the police, according to Amaral, would commit an important error: "We were busy checking all the traces that came with the Ambassador. Traces that were moreover, found to be false".

New instructions from the regional national directorate of the PJ, given after the intervention of two British diplomats – Ambassador John Buck and Consul Bill Henderson – turned the investigator's attention away from the McCanns.

Kate and Gerry McCann, for the first and only time, went to hand in clothes to be washed in the Complex laundry, including Madeleine's clothes, which the inspectors only heard about two days later. Too late, according to Amaral.

"At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May", says Gonçalo Amaral.
 
It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children's clothes - those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie - washed.

"That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part", admits Gonçalo Amaral.
 
"Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine's family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children's clothing... ", states one of the laundry workers.

Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.
 
*

Hicks wrote:The explanation for the tea stain story could be quite a simple one..... "the only other unexplained detail I remember from..THAT MORNING...(May 3rd)

The story is placing Madeleine alive on the Thursday morning, and also planting the idea that an abductor had been around the night before. Two birds one stone. 

Imo poor Madeleine was no longer alive on Thursday morning.

Yes, good point. Kate writes: "The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn't recall seeing it the night before and I had no idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup. So at the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention and that might well be all it was. But now, of course, we can no longer make assumptions about anything that can't be accounted for."

This is a KM classic. An absolute classic! Her brain wiring is quite fascinating.

So Kate is telling us that she did not see the stain on Madeleine's pyjama top the evening before. Therefore, it did not happen at dinner or bed-time the night before. So that rules out one innocent explanation for it

The inference is clear: it happened sometime after Madeleine was put to bed on Wednesday evening and some time before Madeleine changed out of her pyjamas the following morning.  And got dressed in whatever clothes she was going to wear for the kids' club morning activities which were 'mini-sail', speedboat ride and dinghy ride. 

So, the most likely innocent explanation  would be that Madeleine, while still in her pyjamas, drank tea when she had breakfast in the apartment on Thursday morning.

Come on then, Kate! What's the answer? It's important to know because obviously if Madeleine had drunk tea that morning while still in her pjs at breakfast then there is, thankfully, an innocent explanation.

"At the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might be all it was."

Okay, but a drink spillage when? If not at tea or bedtime the night before then how about at breakfast?

Did Madeleine drink tea that morning at breakfast? Because if she did, then that would explain the stain. Phew! At least it wasn't to do with 'the abductor', then. 

So did she or didn't she drink tea at breakfast?? We need to know.

Kate does not say!   

And of course if Madeleine had drunk tea that morning, and if a drink spillage had caused a large stain, then the brown stain would not be an 'unexplained detail.' Because the stain would be wet. And as it was a large stain, the pj top would probably be uncomfortably wet.

And no doubt there would have been an exchange between mother and daughter along the lines of: 'Oh Madeleine, you've managed to spill your drink down your top again. I'm going to have to wash that now.' Or something. 

(The other possible innocent explanation would be if Madeleine had woken up and got a drink during the night. But given that Kate was annoyed with Gerry on Wednesday evening and had slept in the children's bedroom that night, then Kate would have known if Madeleine had got up and spilt a drink down her top during the night.)

If Madeleine hadn't drunk tea that breakfast and there had been no drink spillage during the night then the stain would be dry. Which would point towards a more sinister explanation. One connected to Kate's supposed fear that the abductor entered the children's bedroom the previous evening, probably, as Kate infers from her book, between the 'last check' at around 11.05pm and Gerry arriving back at 11.50pm.

So was the large brown stain wet or dry then? 

Kate chooses not to elaborate.

It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children's clothes - those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie - washed.

"That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part", admits Gonçalo Amaral.
 
"Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine's family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children's clothing... ", states one of the laundry workers.

Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.


--------



That was really going to help the police find the (paedophile) abductor that had entered the children's bedroom and stolen Madeleine, wasn't it? Given that Kate McCann has suggested that the 'abductor' may have entered the apartment the previous evening and could have drugged Madeleine. And given that she suggests that the abductor could have drugged the twins on Thursday night, as they were practically in a coma, then there could easily have been traces of DNA left behind on clothes, bedding, toys.

What about the sheets? Were they included in the laundry that was washed on 5th May as well?

So the McCanns deliberately got rid of vital 'evidence' that might help find the people who were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance?

No surprises there, then.

PeterMac wrote:

Hicks wrote:The McCann's clearly state that Madeleine was wearing this outfit early afternoon on the 3rd.
I wonder if there are any references to what Madeleine was wearing on that afternoon ? Any of the witness statements ? Nannies? Tapas 9?. Was anyone asked I wonder

I think you will find that no one saw Madeleine on 3rd, which is why the forged Last Photo is so important to them.
Tapas group were shunted off to the Paraiso,  Kate went running - past the Paraiso, Gerry had his Achilles tendon afternoon off,
and then everyone is back in the apartment before anyone comes back from the Paraiso.
Lots of strange coincidences ?

Yes PeterMac I agree. That's why Cat Baker's statement is so important. She 'allegedly' spent six hours with Madeleine on that day. Should have been easy for her to give a good description of what Madeleine was wearing when she was returned in the afternoon.
Was Baker questioned about Madeleine's clothes that day? If so I can't find any info. Her first statement tells us absolutely nothing about Madeleine. Then of course she was shipped out of the place which is unbelievable really considering what an important witness she was.
What a difference it would have made had she been questioned about the clothes.

From the McCannfiles........'In the afternoon (may 3rd) the McCann's played tennis while Madeleine went back to her Nanny at the children's club, who gave her tea at 5.30 pm'.

I have a feeling that Cat was a central player in this mystery....somehow!

j.rob wrote:It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children's clothes - those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie - washed.

"That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part", admits Gonçalo Amaral.
 
"Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine's family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children's clothing... ", states one of the laundry workers.

Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.


--------



That was really going to help the police find the (paedophile) abductor that had entered the children's bedroom and stolen Madeleine, wasn't it? Given that Kate McCann has suggested that the 'abductor' may have entered the apartment the previous evening and could have drugged Madeleine. And given that she suggests that the abductor could have drugged the twins on Thursday night, as they were practically in a coma, then there could easily have been traces of DNA left behind on clothes, bedding, toys.

What about the sheets? Were they included in the laundry that was washed on 5th May as well?

So the McCanns deliberately got rid of vital 'evidence' that might help find the people who were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance?

No surprises there, then.

And THIS would certainly have hindered the investigation. Forensic clues washed away. Oh dear, and they are doctors.
Never mind waiting months to accuse Gonçalo Amaral of hindering the investigation, they themselves had done it more than adequately within TWO DAYS.

Casey5 wrote:The McCanns sent all of their dirty clothing to the laundry on the 5th May 2007.
A real WTF moment imo. No parent would have their missing child's clothing washed:
a) Because Madeleine's smell would be on hers.
b) Because the police might need them.
Just like Kate's bewilderment that washing cuddle cat provoked head-shaking disbelieve the McCanns don't seem to even think about keeping Madeleine's clothes so that they can smell them and feel close to her and that's so not normal.

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

Also on 5th May 2007, two days after the announcement of Madeleine's disappearance, the police, according to Amaral, would commit an important error: "We were busy checking all the traces that came with the Ambassador. Traces that were moreover, found to be false".

New instructions from the regional national directorate of the PJ, given after the intervention of two British diplomats – Ambassador John Buck and Consul Bill Henderson – turned the investigator's attention away from the McCanns.

Kate and Gerry McCann, for the first and only time, went to hand in clothes to be washed in the Complex laundry, including Madeleine's clothes, which the inspectors only heard about two days later. Too late, according to Amaral.

"At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May", says Gonçalo Amaral.
 
It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children's clothes - those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie - washed.

"That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part", admits Gonçalo Amaral.
 
"Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine's family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children's clothing... ", states one of the laundry workers.

Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.
 
*

Good find. Now why would the McCann's use the laundry on that day when they had a washing machine? Was that the day Kate couldn't use it and got the oc worker in to look at it? Is that another story invented to explain why the clothes were washed at the laundry? 
Mr Amaral was right about this being a BIG mistake. Sorry to say this but had it not been for these errors by the pj the
 McCann's might be in a different place today.

Once again,reading the above post by Casey5 ,we are reminded about the strange involvement of the British Ambassador, one that even back then shouted ..COVER UP!

And don't forget that according to Jane Tanner's rogatory, their daughter had diarrhea all week. It caused a 'horrendous' smell. It came through the babygrow. So that would 'explain' why they needed to use their washing machine that week. And wasn't one of the Tapas children sick one evening, which involved a big clean-up?

Seems that washing machines and big clean-ups were an integral part of the 'holiday'.

j.rob wrote:Good find. Now why would the McCann's use the laundry on that day when they had a washing machine? Was that the day Kate couldn't use it and got the oc worker in to look at it? Is that another story invented to explain why the clothes were washed at the laundry? 
Mr Amaral was right about this being a BIG mistake. Sorry to say this but had it not been for these errors by the pj the
 McCann's might be in a different place today.


-------


By the 5th May the McCanns had been moved into another apartment at the Ocean Club I think - 'on the first floor of an adjacent block' according to Kate's book. But it may well have had a washing machine, I don't know. Perhaps it was a very big bundle of laundry including sheets etc.


On Monday 30th April, according to Kate's book, two maintenance workers came to have a look at their washing machine which Kate writes: "I couldn't get to operate."


Could it be that by Monday, washing of items had become a priority? 


The PJ were under incredible pressure. But it is complete insanity that the forensics were all so contaminated. It also negates the TM abduction story. How were police supposed to find 'the abductor' when the parents themselves  had deliberately destroyed a lot of potential evidence?

It is certainly obvious that there wasn't going to be too much co operation with the Portugese police in the disappearance of Madeline in the aftermath of it all. The parents couldn't even get their stories straight and the tampering with potential evidence is just mind blowing. What on earth were they trying to hide, it's anyone's guess really. Seems like a huge flurry of activity after a little girl goes missing to deflect and conceal.

j.rob I think it was Rachel Oldfield's baby which had the diarrhoea that leaked through the babygro and smelled dreadful not Jane Tanner's baby.

Yes I think you are right Sparklehorse.    If I had admitted to that I would hang my head in shame, but oh no, we have seen her on the starting line of a "charity race"  with Mrs.  and some chums.  In fact, over time, I think we have seen Fi and Jane on the start lines too.  Oh how wonderful, look at them, charity runners and do-gooders, wow.   Purleeeeeze.

This big clean up is one of the things that has always bugged me along with allowing Tom Dick and Harry and Uncle Tom Cobley into the apartment. Who in their right mind would allow this when forensics are so crucial in any crime scene. They make it clear from the start that this is a crime so anyone with half a brain and nothing to hide would keep everyone out and least of all clean until everything has been gone through with fine tooth comb. Duh!

I can understand that the McCanns could have been running out of clean clothes but surely the obvious solution would have been to:-

a) Ask the police (don't forget the British police - liaison officers were out there also) if it would be ok to wash the clothes and obeyed any answer given. Not that they were good at taking orders from the police of course, the PJ instructed them not to mention Madeleine's colboma or to speak to the press. Both of which Kate and Gerry ignored.

b) Buy a few  new cheap ones and ask family to bring more of their own clothes with them when they came to (visit- help out).
At least their shoes would have been ok, they never did any searching for Madeleine and neither did any of the friends or family who came to (stay- sunbathe by the pool).

Would the hat have needed to be washed?   If not, plenty of hairs would have been retrievable from that wouldn't they?

j.rob wrote:

Hicks wrote:The explanation for the tea stain story could be quite a simple one..... "the only other unexplained detail I remember from..THAT MORNING...(May 3rd)

The story is placing Madeleine alive on the Thursday morning, and also planting the idea that an abductor had been around the night before. Two birds one stone. 

Imo poor Madeleine was no longer alive on Thursday morning.

Yes, good point. Kate writes: "The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn't recall seeing it the night before and I had no idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup. So at the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention and that might well be all it was. But now, of course, we can no longer make assumptions about anything that can't be accounted for."

This is a KM classic. An absolute classic! Her brain wiring is quite fascinating.

So Kate is telling us that she did not see the stain on Madeleine's pyjama top the evening before. Therefore, it did not happen at dinner or bed-time the night before. So that rules out one innocent explanation for it

The inference is clear: it happened sometime after Madeleine was put to bed on Wednesday evening and some time before Madeleine changed out of her pyjamas the following morning.  And got dressed in whatever clothes she was going to wear for the kids' club morning activities which were 'mini-sail', speedboat ride and dinghy ride. 

So, the most likely innocent explanation  would be that Madeleine, while still in her pyjamas, drank tea when she had breakfast in the apartment on Thursday morning.

Come on then, Kate! What's the answer? It's important to know because obviously if Madeleine had drunk tea that morning while still in her pjs at breakfast then there is, thankfully, an innocent explanation.

"At the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might be all it was."

Okay, but a drink spillage when? If not at tea or bedtime the night before then how about at breakfast?

Did Madeleine drink tea that morning at breakfast? Because if she did, then that would explain the stain. Phew! At least it wasn't to do with 'the abductor', then. 

So did she or didn't she drink tea at breakfast?? We need to know.

Kate does not say!   

And of course if Madeleine had drunk tea that morning, and if a drink spillage had caused a large stain, then the brown stain would not be an 'unexplained detail.' Because the stain would be wet. And as it was a large stain, the pj top would probably be uncomfortably wet.

And no doubt there would have been an exchange between mother and daughter along the lines of: 'Oh Madeleine, you've managed to spill your drink down your top again. I'm going to have to wash that now.' Or something. 

(The other possible innocent explanation would be if Madeleine had woken up and got a drink during the night. But given that Kate was annoyed with Gerry on Wednesday evening and had slept in the children's bedroom that night, then Kate would have known if Madeleine had got up and spilt a drink down her top during the night.)

If Madeleine hadn't drunk tea that breakfast and there had been no drink spillage during the night then the stain would be dry. Which would point towards a more sinister explanation. One connected to Kate's supposed fear that the abductor entered the children's bedroom the previous evening, probably, as Kate infers from her book, between the 'last check' at around 11.05pm and Gerry arriving back at 11.50pm.

So was the large brown stain wet or dry then? 

Kate chooses not to elaborate.

Is it normal for 3 year old to have the odd small cup of tea? Tannin and caffeine and potential scalds.

I'd have been as likely to give my children tea before the age of 6 or 7 as I would have been to give them sea bass at 27 months.

And I'm certain she won't have got up in the middle of the night to brew up.

Lets not forget that Dr. David Payne said all 3 children were dressed in WHITE and looked like errrm angels
Surely if there was a BIG BROWN TEA stain he would have noticed it after all he was there for eeerm 30 minutes
Even if he was there for ONLY 30 seconds he would have noticed a big brown mark



IMO the fact is MBM was not there the evening of 3rd of May 2007 and DP is making it up He is a liar

ps
even a layman knows that giving children caffeine before bed will not aid sleep

PeterMac wrote:

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Lets not forget that Dr. David Payne said all 3 children were dressed in WHITE and looked like errrm angels
Surely if there was a BIG BROWN TEA stain he would have noticed it after all he was there for eeerm 30 minutes
Even if he was there for ONLY 30 seconds he would have noticed a big brown mark
IMO the fact is MBM was not there the evening of 3rd of May 2007 and DP is making it up.  He is a liar

And she was not there at lunchtime on 3rd May as the Last Photo is a forgery
And she was not there  . . . .

And gradually the whole thing is unravelling

And have you ever tried to remove a big stain of any colour without special detergent and stain remover and machine was and even then it doesn;t wash out and never really does because big dry stains are set.

Nina wrote:And have you ever tried to remove a big stain of any colour without special detergent and stain remover and machine was and even then it doesn;t wash out and never really does because big dry stains are set.

Exactly Nina.  I look at my brand new white  tea towels and notice tea stains on them which several 40 degree washes with Persil, stain remover etc have still not managed to get rid of.  Tea stains remind of dried blood stains in colour and both are stubborn to remove.  The thing to do with freshly spilt stains is to plunge them in cold water as soon as possible to stop the stain from developing. Then wash them on a high temperature. I still find it hard to believe that Kate washed the pyjama top by hand in the morning or whenever  and it was dry a few hours later.  It wasn't particularly hot that day was it as far as I can recall.

PeterMac wrote:

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Lets not forget that Dr. David Payne said all 3 children were dressed in WHITE and looked like errrm angels
Surely if there was a BIG BROWN TEA stain he would have noticed it after all he was there for eeerm 30 minutes
Even if he was there for ONLY 30 seconds he would have noticed a big brown mark
IMO the fact is MBM was not there the evening of 3rd of May 2007 and DP is making it up.  He is a liar

And she was not there at lunchtime on 3rd May as the Last Photo is a forgery
And she was not there  . . . .

And gradually the whole thing is unravelling

I keep seeing these references to Madeleine not being alive at all on the 3rd and being substituted with another child but I can't understand why people would think this was a realistic possibility? I had ruled it out as one of Coldwater's tall tales long ago and am surprised to see it still being given any credibility.


It relies on the McCanns creating a situation that they have absolutely no control over at all and taking unnecessary risks for no reason. 

• It relies on a lookalike 3 year old being expected to lie and pretend that she is Madeleine for a full day
  
• It relies on another parent agreeing for their child to be put in that position
  
• It relies on no other parent of the Tapas kids or other creche kids noticing that it's not Madeleine the McCanns are signing in or picking up from high tea.
  
• It relies on no adult at the creche noticing at creche or at high tea that even if the other child's hair is the same as Madeleine's her face and eyes are different
  
• It relies on no adult at the creche or at high tea noticing her mannerisms are different to Madeleine's
  
• It relies on no adult at the creche or high tea noticing that Madeleine's Leicestershire accent has suddenly changed to a southern? accent
  

You would have to be mad to take all those risks, knowing that if any of it fails it immediately puts the spotlight on you. And if the plan fails, as seems likely, there's no innocent reason to have attempted such a thing, especially if there's no Madeleine there too.

Although somebody uninvolved with the children may see a group of little blonde toddlers and think they all look alike, if you've spent several hours, let alone several days in the company of them you can easily identify their differences. You can't just substitute one for another and expect nobody to notice. 

If Madeleine had passed away some time before the 3rd and the McCann's wanted to cover it up, it would make more sense to claim she had been abducted while they slept, rather than attempt to pass off another child as Madeleine for a full day.

sammyc wrote:

Nina wrote:And have you ever tried to remove a big stain of any colour without special detergent and stain remover and machine was and even then it doesn;t wash out and never really does because big dry stains are set.

Exactly Nina.  I look at my brand new white  tea towels and notice tea stains on them which several 40 degree washes with Persil, stain remover etc have still not managed to get rid of.  Tea stains remind of dried blood stains in colour and both are stubborn to remove.  The thing to do with freshly spilt stains is to plunge them in cold water as soon as possible to stop the stain from developing. Then wash them on a high temperature. I still find it hard to believe that Kate washed the pyjama top by hand in the morning or whenever  and it was dry a few hours later.  It wasn't particularly hot that day was it as far as I can recall.

No it wasn't according to the weather records, however according to the last photo it was very warm    And of course and washing requires hand wringing to get rid of excess water so would be even wetter.

A tip: worst thing you can do with a stained tissue = to wash at low temperature. It will settle and never to be removed again without special product :-)

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:What I cant understand is the LACK of MBM's DNA
She was supposedly there from Saturday before she disappeared on Thursday?

apparently the McCanns transported DIRTY DIAPERS ???
SO WHAT happened to the knickers MBM was wearing that day?
What happened to the clothes she was wearing that day?

It's a pity all the bedding from the children's room was not bagged up for analysis I think.

The FSS required a Control sample from the parents and a provenaced sample from where Madeleine lived
prior to her disappearance.

This was gained from a pillowcase in the Rothley home.

JRB/1 was the reference for this sample to test the parental markers against.

If the 5a pillowcases and bedding  had have been saved for analysis it is possible ( but not certain )
that the two pillowcases could have matched in terms of saliva and that could have shown that Madeleine
was at some point in one of the beds - under the window or in the bed where she was said to have been taken from.

That could have proved objectively that Madeleine was in 5a in order to be removed.


There was a further provenaced DNA sample which didn't arrive at the FSS until the 12/10/07 and that was " a blood spot
in a cardboard frame " - and in a report it was written that this was tested against the parental control sample and/or maybe the
so called ' Rothley pillowcase ' result at a certain time. This sample file name was SJM/1

The problem with this on reading the FSS files on the maddiecasefiles is that in Setember 07 there was an FSS letter sent to the
PJ re: Destruction of samples. The perishable items included blood samples. The Defence could request that these samples be destroyed
within 21 days if requested.

Therefore if the defence requested that the FSS destroy or throw away these samples what happened to the sample SJM/1?

More to the point if SJM/1 was part of the destroyed samples of blood how could the FSS test against a sample that no longer
existed bearing in mind the date of the warning for possible destruction was in September 07 ( with the proviso that this would happen
within 21 days of the warning/offer to keep or destroy from the FSS) if they didn't receive the sample SJM/1 until the 12/10/07?


That's a bit of a headscratcher for me.


Only an observation and opinion though.

Interesting.

But as there was no 'defence' at that point, surely no request for destruction could have been made?

Nina wrote:No it wasn't according to the weather records, however according to the last photo it was very warm    And of course and washing requires hand wringing to get rid of excess water so would be even wetter.

Ive been wondering where to slot this in. "According to the last photo it was warm"

A bit like the weather on Sunday 29th April 2007 in fact, take a look at the video its like
travelling back in time.

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