Re: Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a

by j.rob 22.10.14 16:16

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?

by j.rob 22.10.14 16:28

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'.

by Joss 22.10.14 17:01

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.

by Sparklehorse 22.10.14 17:11

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.

by plebgate 22.10.14 18:47

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.

by joti26 22.10.14 19:09

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!

by Casey5 22.10.14 19:32

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).

by plebgate 22.10.14 19:36

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

by Guest 22.10.14 20:13

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. coffee

by Dont Make Me Laff 22.10.14 20:53

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

by Dont Make Me Laff 22.10.14 20:55

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

by **PeterMac** 22.10.14 21:09

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

by Nina 22.10.14 21:20

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.

by sammyc 22.10.14 21:35

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.

by Stillthinking 22.10.14 21:58

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.

by Nina 22.10.14 21:59

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 nah

And of course and washing requires hand wringing to get rid of excess water so would be even wetter.

by Guest 22.10.14 22:31

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 :-)

by XTC 22.10.14 23:28

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.

by Guest 23.10.14 1:18

Interesting.

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

by Grande Finale 23.10.14 1:51

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_OtStlTGc

by Varriott 23.10.14 3:12

Stillthinking wrote:

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

Actually, 'the theory', as outlined by Johanna, and also argued by Dr Martin Roberts, is that the McCanns simply signed Madeleine in and out of the creche. There was no need to ask a 3-year-old to lie. 3-year-old are not really capable of lies in any case. Their notion is that the creche workers would be reluctant to admit that the wrong number of people were signed in that day. If someone just called the wrong child 'Madeleine' that would be enough. As for the other parents agreeing - how do you explain the multiple inconsistencies and clear falsehoods on record coming out of the mouths of the other parents?

by Sonmi-451 23.10.14 4:08

@Stillthinking

"It relies on a lookalike 3 year old being expected to lie and pretend that she is Madeleine for a full day"

In 2013 my 3yr old son had spent several weeks at a 'pre-school' in Kent (just outside Faversham, a couple of miles West along the A2) before it was my turn to pick him up.

I stood by the fence, by the 'pre-fab' block just where his Mum had told me to wait, in order to pick him up.

I didn't see him, so I gradually shuffled my way towards the teaching assistant whose job it was to 'pass' the kids out to their parents. I said that I was there to pick up 'O.....'.

...and I was met with a look of bewilderment and suspicion.

It turned out my son had said he was called 'R......', and so it was by this name the teaching assistant had known him for the previous few weeks.

So... Here's a 'professional' whose job was to teach the kids and also make sure they only went off with their parents...and yet they didn't even know my son's name!! There was no reference to the register, no correlation with the name on his bag... Nothing!

...and you think that after just a week the resort's creche workers (of whom at least one was totally new in the job) would know "who was who"?

by Stillthinking 23.10.14 13:22

Varriott wrote:

Actually, 'the theory', as outlined by Johanna, and also argued by Dr Martin Roberts, is that the McCanns simply signed Madeleine in and out of the creche. There was no need to ask a 3-year-old to lie. 3-year-old are not really capable of lies in any case. Their notion is that the creche workers would be reluctant to admit that the wrong number of people were signed in that day. If someone just called the wrong child 'Madeleine' that would be enough. As for the other parents agreeing - how do you explain the multiple inconsistencies and clear falsehoods on record coming out of the mouths of the other parents?

Ok that must be another theory ...so that theory is that the McCanns turned up at the creche for Madeleine's age group, 4 times that day with no child and just signed the name Madeleine in and out, morning and afternoon and nobody noticed? Again it is a crazy risk to take because the risk of anybody noticing that Madeleine isn't with them at any point, during the 4 journeys to and from creche, at the creche sign in, and if/when the staff do a head count, (particularly if there was a boat trip etc.) immediately puts the focus on the McCanns. I think, like the theory of Gerry carrying a decoy child through Luz that night, it's an unnecessary risk to take when you don't have to and when the risk of being revealed immediately puts you in the spotlight. I can't imagine anyone, let alone someone as controlling as Gerry appears to be, taking a risk that leaves too many variables that he has no control over. It's just too big a risk to take when you think what the fallout would be if anybody noticed their deception.

by Stillthinking 23.10.14 13:32

Sonmi-451 wrote:@Stillthinking

"It relies on a lookalike 3 year old being expected to lie and pretend that she is Madeleine for a full day"

In 2013 my 3yr old son had spent several weeks at a 'pre-school' in Kent (just outside Faversham, a couple of miles West along the A2) before it was my turn to pick him up.

I stood by the fence, by the 'pre-fab' block just where his Mum had told me to wait, in order to pick him up.

I didn't see him, so I gradually shuffled my way towards the teaching assistant whose job it was to 'pass' the kids out to their parents. I said that I was there to pick up 'O.....'.

...and I was met with a look of bewilderment and suspicion.

It turned out my son had said he was called 'R......', and so it was by this name the teaching assistant had known him for the previous few weeks.

So... Here's a 'professional' whose job was to teach the kids and also make sure they only went off with their parents...and yet they didn't even know my son's name!! There was no reference to the register, no correlation with the name on his bag... Nothing!

...and you think that after just a week the resort's creche workers (of whom at least one was totally new in the job) would know "who was who"?

In your example it, shocking as it is, it wasn't that the TA didn't physically recognise your child, it was that they knew them by a different name.

Yes I think after much less than a week the children's creche key workers, who were each in charge of a small number of children, would know which child was which, because of their appearance, personality, mannerisms and accents. I am amazed people think they wouldn't .

by Rogue-a-Tory 23.10.14 14:26

Sonmi-451 wrote:@Stillthinking

"It relies on a lookalike 3 year old being expected to lie and pretend that she is Madeleine for a full day"

In 2013 my 3yr old son had spent several weeks at a 'pre-school' in Kent (just outside Faversham, a couple of miles West along the A2) before it was my turn to pick him up.

I stood by the fence, by the 'pre-fab' block just where his Mum had told me to wait, in order to pick him up.

I didn't see him, so I gradually shuffled my way towards the teaching assistant whose job it was to 'pass' the kids out to their parents. I said that I was there to pick up 'O.....'.

...and I was met with a look of bewilderment and suspicion.

It turned out my son had said he was called 'R......', and so it was by this name the teaching assistant had known him for the previous few weeks.

So... Here's a 'professional' whose job was to teach the kids and also make sure they only went off with their parents...and yet they didn't even know my son's name!! There was no reference to the register, no correlation with the name on his bag... Nothing!

...and you think that after just a week the resort's creche workers (of whom at least one was totally new in the job) would know "who was who"?

Don't forget the Mcs had 2 associated on the inside of MW creches - Amy Tierney & Charlotte Pennington. Their role in any of this would need investigating IMO