Re: Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

by Doug D 26.08.16 14:46

Kaz,

Similar background thoughts to your own, although as there is no evidence as to whether an act of temper or just losing it upon discovery, either on return or getting up in the morning, I suppose technically it’s not ‘plausibly based’.

The bruising is clearly not consistent with:

‘For the first time I noticed the ugly purple, blue and black bruises on the sides of my hands, wrists and forearms. I was shocked. Gerry reminded me of how I’d been banging my clenched fists on the veranda railing and the apartment walls the night before. I could only vaguely remember it.’ (madeleine)

but more with restraint.

Hitting walls in anger or frustration generally leads to knuckle/hand injuries, not wrists and forearms.

Verdi asks for ‘theorizing (is) within the limits of realism’, so if we allow the bruising to be evidence of restraint (many do not), we need to be looking for possibilities requiring such restraint.

The dogs we have actually seen on video, but what should be the pretty much routine follow up with the forensic stuff is just shambolic, to such an extent that it seems deliberately so.

by Roxyroo 26.08.16 18:55

kaz wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I'm not convinced It was Madeleine's t-shirt or that she wore it. I believe it was Sean's and there are photos of him wearing it, it is by all accounts a "boys" red t-shirt depicting trains or planes. I believe it may have been by the "body" long enough to be contaminated by cadaver odour.

Okay, but why JUST the T shirt ? Again just casting out my nets based on the dogs' evidence of cadaver odour on the red shirt, is it possible that Madeleine was being deliberately annoying as three year olds do and putting her brother's top on instead of her own? It's plausible, yes, but not sure if it qualifies as 'plausible evidence.' It's certainly 'realistic.'

I think they may have just not got rid of all the right clothes.

by kaz 26.08.16 19:19

Roxyroo wrote:

I think they may have just not got rid of all the right clothes.

No, they didn't get rid of ' all the right clothes.' They left incriminating evidence in the red T shirt, the check trousers and Cuddle cat. The fact that these hadn't 'disappeared' points to the fact that the dogs were one thing they hadn't thought through. Look at Gerry's face when the question,' What about the dogs Gerry?' is asked of him. He's seething inside. He's almost defeated. They really didn't think that one through which makes the dogs' evidence even more revealing.

by Guest 26.08.16 21:19

A porous material such as clothing or a cuddle cat, doesn't need to be in direct contact with a corpse to be contaminated - in this instance the cadavar scent was most likely by transference as opposed to direct contact. In a death situation that needs to be concealed, nobody, even in a panic situation would be stupid enough to retain clothing that had been in direct contact with a corpse. Why would it occur to them to dispose of Gerald's clothing and not the wife's and it's very unlikely that Madeleine was holding cuddlecat, that scenario defies logic. It is however quite feasible that the items identified by the dogs were inadvertently placed in the same location, albeit at a later time, as a corpse or some other material that had been in contact with a corpse at the time of, or after the event.

The interview with Sandra Felgueiras took place in November 2009, well over two years after the dogs were deployed to Praia da Luz, all the detail of the dog alerts was well documented long before - if you remember the McCanns went out of their way to discredit dogs trained to assist in a criminal investigation. I think Gerald's disgust was more to do with being interviewed without pre-scripting, put on the spot so to speak, rather than a guilt complex.

by MayMuse 26.08.16 22:03

I can accept transference on the t-shirt, whether I believe that or not I'm not sure, but not Kate's trousers etc.

Was the "spare" cot ever found?
You know the one the maid said she saw in the McCanns bedroom?

by kaz 26.08.16 22:04

Verdi wrote:A porous material such as clothing or a cuddle cat, doesn't need to be in direct contact with a corpse to be contaminated - in this instance the cadavar scent was most likely by transference as opposed to direct contact. In a death situation that needs to be concealed, nobody, even in a panic situation would be stupid enough to retain clothing that had been in direct contact with a corpse. Why would it occur to them to dispose of Gerald's clothing and not the wife's and it's very unlikely that Madeleine was holding cuddlecat, that scenario defies logic. It is however quite feasible that the items identified by the dogs were inadvertently placed in the same location, albeit at a later time, as a corpse or some other material that had been in contact with a corpse at the time of, or after the event.

The interview with Sandra Felgueiras took place in November 2009, well over two years after the dogs were deployed to Praia da Luz, all the detail of the dog alerts was well documented long before - if you remember the McCanns went out of their way to discredit dogs trained to assist in a criminal investigation. I think Gerald's disgust was more to do with being interviewed without pre-scripting, put on the spot so to speak, rather than a guilt complex.

Not sure how you can state this as confidently as you have. Why a pair of check trousers , a red T shirt and a toy should be the sole objects of transference is as unlikely to me as the direct contamination is to you. Why the three items and ONLY those items would be placed behind the sofa or possibly in the wardrobe for transference to occur doesn't ring true to me. It's also very likely that Madeleine WOULD be clutching her Cuddle Cat ESPECIALLY during a frightening episode. As I said earlier the McCanns thought of nearly everything and had each angle 'covered' but who ever imagined the dogs would be brought in? I doubt if it entered their frazzled brains . It's quite possible that Gerry was still in bed when it all began to kick off early that morning when he had to intervene .Who's to say he was wearing anything? Maybe like many people, he sleeps in the buff.
I didn't say that Gerry's reaction was one of guilt. I wrote: On being asked the question, '' And what about the dogs Gerry?' '' He's seething inside. He's almost defeated. They really didn't think that one through which makes the dogs' evidence even more revealing.''

by MayMuse 26.08.16 22:08

My understanding is that there was a t-shirt ( also contaminated) they believed belonged to Kate, a pale grey one or maybe dirty white, I think?

Stand to be corrected.

by kaz 26.08.16 22:22

MayMuse wrote:My understanding is that there was a t-shirt ( also contaminated) they believed belonged to Kate, a pale grey one or maybe dirty white, I think?

Stand to be corrected.

You're correct. TWO items of Kate's clothes. Trousers and top. The files actually state that the child's item was Madeleine's but it does seem more likely that it was her brother's as you said previously. yes

by Guest 27.08.16 0:45

2nd August 2007

Using cardboard boxes, all the clothes in the house were taken to a specially prepared area to be placed on the ground for the dogs.

At 23h20 all the clothes are spread out. Eddie marks a strong cadaver odour on Kate's clothes: slacks in black/white check and a sleeveless white blouse. He barks frenetically.

Keela finds no blood vestiges.
----------

Findings, as detailed in the PJ's 57-page report summary

The clothes and belongings of the Family MCCANN

1. cadaver odour dog:

two pieces of clothing belonging to KATE HEALY

a piece of clothing of the minor Madeleine

plush toy, possibly belonging to Madeleine (it was detected cadaver odour, when the soft toy was inside the residence – at the date occupied by the family)
----------

Witness statement of Martin Grime by letter rogatory - 14th May 2008

Q: With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver

OR

Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred?

A: There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
----------

As I said earlier, it's extremely unlikely Kate McCann would have continued wearing a pair of pants and/or a top if the same articles of clothing were worn when handling a corpse, especially the corpse of her own precious child. Hence I opine that KM's clothing was most likely contaminated by transference.

I think the desire to believe in a theory is clouding judgement. whatever anyone wishes to think, the dog alerts were not corroborated by forensic analysis so it's a moot point anyway. The fact remains that the dogs alerted to cadavar scent and blood scent on ONLY items associated with the McCann family. The dog alerts are most certainly important intelligence but without confirmation they can be easily dismissed by law and the McCann defence mechanism.

by Roxyroo 27.08.16 0:57

These clothes could've been in the boot at some point and this is when transference happened. I don't know why u jumped on my post Kaz, what I meant was that in their attempts to obfiscate they made mistakes.

by Guest 27.08.16 0:59

To adhere to the prevailing theory that Kate McCann's clothing was contaminated by direct contact with a corpse, you would also have to believe she worked alone.

She alone was responsible for a death - she alone removed a body - she alone cleaned up afterwards. Is that really likely?

by Guest 27.08.16 1:06

Roxyroo wrote:These clothes could've been in the boot at some point and this is when transference happened.

Verbal Report by Martin Grime Relating to the Searches Carried out with the Dogs in the Ocean Club Apartments - Apartment 5a [snipped]..

"What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area.

If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner."

by Guest 27.08.16 1:52

- OBJECTS FOR EXAMINATION
1. One (01) pink cloth toy, with yellow paws and ears and blue label, make "cuddle cat", with a third in wood and a green band, alluding to Fatima, that was found in the lounge on top of a large chair [armchair].
2. Clothes, shoes, bags [hand-bags; suitcases] and travel bags [knapsacks] that were packed as follows:
- Lounge, two boxes.
- Master bedroom, two boxes.
- Twins' bedroom, one suitcase.
- Visitors' bedroom, one suitcase.

1. Between 23h20 and 23h30 the two dogs were allowed to reconoitre the entire area to guarantee that there were no existing odours - and none were detected by them.

2. Between 23h30 and 23h40 items from the box labelled 'common room' were inspected by the blood dog without result.
- At 23h41 the cadaver dog began its inspection and 'marked' some clothing on the edge of the area. The inspection ended at 23h52 with the clothing having been collected for later direct examination and photographic report.

3. Clothes from the box labelled Lounge ("sitting room") were inspected by the blood dog between 00h02 (now 3 August) and 00h05 without any result. The same clothes were inspected by the cadaver dog between 00h06 and 00h07 also without any result.

4. Then the suitcase labelled 'Twins bedroom' was inspected, followed by two sets of inspections of its contents due to the large number of individual pieces it contained: the blood dog inspected [the first set] between 00h12 and 00h15, and then [the second set] between 00h22 and 00h24 - both without any result.
The cadaver dog inspected [set one] between 00h16 and 00h17, then [set two] between 00h25 and 00h26, also without any result.

5. An empty suitcase labelled 'Visitors bedroom' was inspected, along with sundry clothing packed in a box labelled Outside Clothes rack. Between 00h40 and 00h43 the blood dog inspected without any result, and in its turn the cadaver dog inspected between 00h44 and 00h45, also without any result.

6. The clothes packed in the box labelled "couple's bedroom 1" was inspected by the blood dog between 00h51 and 00h55, while the cadaver dog inspected it between 00h56 and 0057 without any result from either dog.
because there were so many pieces of clothing in the box a second inspection was conducted between 01h04 and 01h07 by the blood dog, and between 01h08 and 01h09 by the cadaver dog, [again] without any result from either dog.

7. The clothes packed in the box labelled "couple's bedroom 2" was inspected by the cadaver dog between 01h20 and 01h22, then the blood dog between 01h23 and 01h25. Nothing abnormal was detected by either dog.

The language here implies all the marked items were found in one round of inspections. What is curious to me is that we don't have a confirmation of which room they came from. Assuming the answer is 'common room', that wasn't previously listed as a box.

Whatever the progeny, we can see that all the marked items were found in the same session. Given the nature of transferrence, can we attach a degree of certainty that these items were contaminated with cadaverine compound at the same time?

And since the red tshirt was not packed with the twin's bedroom clothes/items, can we make any conclusions on its prior owner?

I have a feeling they knew which items they needed to look at (perhaps Kate is wearing said clothes in unreleased photos), and the fact they were found in one go was not coincidental. To be a fly on the wall in that meeting..

by Doug D 27.08.16 9:12

Verdi:

‘To adhere to the prevailing theory that Kate McCann's clothing was contaminated by direct contact with a corpse, you would also have to believe she worked alone.’

Why?

If KM’s ‘black & whites’ had gone missing, they would have been missed straight away.

A pair of GM’s chino’s & a polo shirt, no such problem.

by Guest 27.08.16 13:35

Doug D wrote:
If KM’s ‘black & whites’ had gone missing, they would have been missed straight away.

Sorry, I'm not with you - missed by who?

by MayMuse 27.08.16 16:10

Verdi wrote:2nd August 2007

Using cardboard boxes, all the clothes in the house were taken to a specially prepared area to be placed on the ground for the dogs.

At 23h20 all the clothes are spread out. Eddie marks a strong cadaver odour on Kate's clothes: slacks in black/white check and a sleeveless white blouse. He barks frenetically.

Keela finds no blood vestiges.
----------

Findings, as detailed in the PJ's 57-page report summary

The clothes and belongings of the Family MCCANN

1. cadaver odour dog:

two pieces of clothing belonging to KATE HEALY

a piece of clothing of the minor Madeleine

plush toy, possibly belonging to Madeleine (it was detected cadaver odour, when the soft toy was inside the residence – at the date occupied by the family)
----------

Witness statement of Martin Grime by letter rogatory - 14th May 2008

Q: With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver

OR

Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred?

A: There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
----------

As I said earlier, it's extremely unlikely Kate McCann would have continued wearing a pair of pants and/or a top if the same articles of clothing were worn when handling a corpse, especially the corpse of her own precious child. Hence I opine that KM's clothing was most likely contaminated by transference.

I think the desire to believe in a theory is clouding judgement. whatever anyone wishes to think, the dog alerts were not corroborated by forensic analysis so it's a moot point anyway. The fact remains that the dogs alerted to cadavar scent and blood scent on ONLY items associated with the McCann family. The dog alerts are most certainly important intelligence but without confirmation they can be easily dismissed by law and the McCann defence mechanism.

Really? Like she wore them to work when she supposedly dealt with "dead" bodies; the explanation of why cadaver odour was found on them. Not one mention of "it could not be" (horror, horror) but a plausible reason? The same given for cuddle cat? So there you are, the very same suggestion can be used for transference from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a and Madeleine!
Not buying it [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 27.08.16 16:28

MayMuse wrote:Really? Like she wore them to work when she supposedly dealt with "dead" bodies; the explanation of why cadaver odour was found on them. Not one mention of "it could not be" (horror, horror) but a plausible reason? The same given for cuddle cat? So there you are, the very same suggestion can be used for transference from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a and Madeleine!
Not buying it [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I don't think you will find anything to confirm that claim was made by either Kate or Gerry McCann. If I remember correctly, it was first mentioned by a Portuguese tabloid and subsequently regurgitated by the UK press. Around the time it might have been suggested that the claim came from a family member (an unnamed source), not sure - if you can locate some verification to prove me wrong I should be grateful. I don't think the cuddlecat issue was ever mentioned in any of these press reports.

The remainder of your post I don't understand.

by Guest 27.08.16 16:45

Roxyroo wrote:These clothes could've been in the boot at some point and this is when transference happened. I don't know why u jumped on my post Kaz, what I meant was that in their attempts to obfiscate they made mistakes.

Quite so Roxyroo - indeed there are any number of possibilities, without further evidence I think it's impossible to determine how Kate McCann's clothing became contaminated with cadavar scent. What I find particularly hard to comprehend is why, hypothetically speaking, a mother (or father for that matter) who had come in contact with the deceased body of her own child (be it fair means of foul) would continue to wear the same clothing as worn when handling the corpse. Doesn't bear thinking about.

The Renault Scenic features prominently in this mystery in my opinion. One such example being the smell that reportedly came from the boot and the claim by a neighbour when interviewed by the PJ, that the boot was left open for hours on end - conveninetly explained by Sandy Cameron (Gerry McCann's brother-in-law) how he cleaned the boot after liquids from meat and seafood dripped out of a plastic bag and the car started smelling and leaving the car open to air after cleaning.

There are of course other explanations emanating from the McCann faction as to why the car boot was a bit whiffy - ranging from dirty nappies to sweaty sandals to rotting meat to fish leakage.

by MayMuse 27.08.16 17:00

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Really? Like she wore them to work when she supposedly dealt with "dead" bodies; the explanation of why cadaver odour was found on them. Not one mention of "it could not be" (horror, horror) but a plausible reason? The same given for cuddle cat? So there you are, the very same suggestion can be used for transference from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a and Madeleine!
Not buying it [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I don't think you will find anything to confirm that claim was made by either Kate or Gerry McCann. If I remember correctly, it was first mentioned by a Portuguese tabloid and subsequently regurgitated by the UK press. Around the time it might have been suggested that the claim came from a family member (an unnamed source), not sure - if you can locate some verification to prove me wrong I should be grateful. I don't think the cuddlecat issue was ever mentioned in any of these press reports.

The remainder of your post I don't understand.

It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.
If we are to believe cross-contamination / transference then we have to accept that the cadaver odour could indeed be from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a; it applies to both.
A get out clause.
That's my opinion on the matter.
Add note; the video showing the "dogs" with the clothes, are we to believe that is all the clothes they had on that holiday, where were Madeleine's shorts and tops, shoes and socks etc, plus the twins and Gerrys;there was not enough clothes for a family of five.

by kaz 27.08.16 18:43

It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.
If we are to believe cross-contamination / transference then we have to accept that the cadaver odour could indeed be from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a; it applies to both.
A get out clause.
That's my opinion on the matter.
Add note; the video showing the "dogs" with the clothes, are we to believe that is all the clothes they had on that holiday, where were Madeleine's shorts and tops, shoes and socks etc, plus the twins and Gerrys;there was not enough clothes for a family of five.

Yes, the comment from Kate's mother. It's a very defensive statement and patently ridiculous and incidentally acknowledges the sterling work done by the dogs. What we do know unequivocally is that cadaver odour was found on two items of Kate's clothing , one of the children's and on Cuddle Cat. I don't think that they got rid of any clothes . I truly believe that cadaver odour seeking dogs were not in their frame of reference. That's why it's so important. If it had have been, those clothes would have 'disappeared ' along with any other incriminating evidence. I don't understand why we have to keep talking 'transference ' here and not direct contact. I know it upsets and negates other theories but I'm not bothered about any one theory............I don't have one.....................I'm merely looking for a 'fit' that correlates with evidence. As I said previously the dogs' evidence stands alone ; it's free from subjective interpretation and the items where it was scented could well tell us a story.
I previously stated that Kate was wearing her check trousers during her early morning violent episode with Madeleine and admittedly was concerned that Kate was missing some sort of top. However MayMuse has corrected me in that Kate's top was also contaminated. This provides to me a much more plausible and vivid image of the likely scenario.
@ verdi
What I find particularly hard to comprehend is why, hypothetically speaking, a mother (or father for that matter) who had come in contact with the deceased body of her own child (be it fair means of foul) would continue to wear the same clothing as worn when handling the corpse. Doesn't bear thinking about.
And yet, these are the same clothes that Kate wore to work and came into contact with cadavers resulting in transference which she later took on HOLIDAY with her. Surely they are not that strapped for cash ? The McCanns were presenting happy smiley faces just days after Madeleine's 'abduction.' I think your sensitivities are in a parallel universe to theirs.

by Guest 27.08.16 20:50

MayMuse wrote:
It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.

In the interest of clarity, would you be so kind as to post a link/s to where Kate McCann's mother made this claim.

Not that I believe it for one second - apart from the extremely unlikely event of her wearing such items of clothing for attending a death during her course of work, the mere suggestion that she took cuddlecat to work is risible at best.

by Guest 27.08.16 21:07

kaz wrote:

It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.
If we are to believe cross-contamination / transference then we have to accept that the cadaver odour could indeed be from "work" and nothing to do with apartment 5a; it applies to both.
A get out clause.
That's my opinion on the matter.
Add note; the video showing the "dogs" with the clothes, are we to believe that is all the clothes they had on that holiday, where were Madeleine's shorts and tops, shoes and socks etc, plus the twins and Gerrys;there was not enough clothes for a family of five.
Yes, the comment from Kate's mother. It's a very defensive statement and patently ridiculous and incidentally acknowledges the sterling work done by the dogs. What we do know unequivocally is that cadaver odour was found on two items of Kate's clothing , one of the children's and on Cuddle Cat. I don't think that they got rid of any clothes . I truly believe that cadaver odour seeking dogs were not in their frame of reference. That's why it's so important. If it had have been, those clothes would have 'disappeared ' along with any other incriminating evidence. I don't understand why we have to keep talking 'transference ' here and not direct contact. I know it upsets and negates other theories but I'm not bothered about any one theory............I don't have one.....................I'm merely looking for a 'fit' that correlates with evidence. As I said previously the dogs' evidence stands alone ; it's free from subjective interpretation and the items where it was scented could well tell us a story.
I previously stated that Kate was wearing her check trousers during her early morning violent episode with Madeleine and admittedly was concerned that Kate was missing some sort of top. However MayMuse has corrected me in that Kate's top was also contaminated. This provides to me a much more plausible and vivid image of the likely scenario.
@ verdi
What I find particularly hard to comprehend is why, hypothetically speaking, a mother (or father for that matter) who had come in contact with the deceased body of her own child (be it fair means of foul) would continue to wear the same clothing as worn when handling the corpse. Doesn't bear thinking about.
And yet, these are the same clothes that Kate wore to work and came into contact with cadavers resulting in tranhesference which she later took on HOLIDAY with her. Surely they are not that strapped for cash ? The McCanns were presenting happy smiley faces just days after Madeleine's 'abduction.' I think your sensitivities are in a parallel universe to theirs.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just being contrary for fun? You're making nonsense out of counter argument rather than adjusting your thoughts to include an element of logic.

You say, I quote - "I previously stated that Kate was wearing her check trousers during her early morning violent episode with Madeleine". That is pure invention without a scrap of evidence or informed intelligence to support it. You don't even know whether the pants were packed for the holiday, bought in Portugal or taken over there by a family member or friend. They were staying at Praia da Luz for over four months, obviously they had a change of clothes other than their holiday packing.

This is just going round in circles, not leading anywhere. I can't waste any more time on a futile exercise, guess we will have to agree to disagree.

by kaz 27.08.16 21:33

Verdi wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just being contrary for fun? You're making nonsense out of counter argument rather than adjusting your thoughts to include an element of logic.

You say, I quote - "I previously stated that Kate was wearing her check trousers during her early morning violent episode with Madeleine". That is pure invention without a scrap of evidence or informed intelligence to support it. You don't even know whether the pants were packed for the holiday, bought in Portugal or taken over there by a family member or friend. They were staying at Praia da Luz for over four months, obviously they had a change of clothes other than their holiday packing.

This is just going round in circles, not leading anywhere. I can't waste any more time on a futile exercise, guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I disagree. It is a theory that fits with the dogs' findings. It is NOT pure invention. A child died in that apartment. Clothes belonging to Kate and Madeleine were found to be contaminated with cadaver odour. Kate had bruise marks on her wrists. None of this is subjective interpretation, it's fact.
A tragic accident or worse, a fit of uncontrollable temper makes more sense to me than all the MI5 conspiracy and hints of paedophilia. I've examined all the theories and this one makes the most sense. It's only going round in circles in YOUR head because you have this fixed idea as to what happened and every other theory is just nonsense to you. That's okay by me. That's your prerogative. I certainly don't want you to 'waste' any more time on me .My ego can take the 'loss.' ( ! ) However I'm entitled to my opinion and as you say, let's agree to disagree.

by MayMuse 27.08.16 22:50

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
It was from a family member I believe Kate's mother; that she (kTe) took cuddle cat to work and wore those same clothes as an explanation of the source of cadaver odour.
In the interest of clarity, would you be so kind as to post a link/s to where Kate McCann's mother made this claim.

Not that I believe it for one second - apart from the extremely unlikely event of her wearing such items of clothing for attending a death during her course of work, the mere suggestion that she took cuddlecat to work is risible at best.

Many articles were "whooshed" however I recall reading several "explanations" whereby not only Kate's mother was mentioned, Kate herself and her sister in law in regards to the "scent of death"on her clothes ( originally jeans I think which we now know as the checked trousers) I think some articles were published in Portugal and then translated to the UK. Whether these hold any "substance", it is interesting the excuses mirror the "rotting meat"? There has been no rebuttal of these other than "ask the dogs" Sandra. so, if this is a "myth" somewhat like "Chinese whispers", why the need to "explain" it away?
I cannot provide you with a direct link at the moment ( maybe try google) as previously stated many media reports/ articles were whooshed, mainly those not in a "favourable" light!
No smoke without fire IMHO

An example Link whooshed Kate tells of nightmare Daily Mail ( journalist Lori Campbell PDL) found here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Half way down.

by worriedmum 27.08.16 22:59

I have said this before, but the 'transference' of cadaver odour theory should surely mean that everything that came in contact with anything contaminated would then spread it endlessly-wouldn't it?

by MayMuse 27.08.16 23:01

Verdi wrote:
Doug D wrote:
If KM’s ‘black & whites’ had gone missing, they would have been missed straight away.

Sorry, I'm not with you - missed by who?

I think Doug D may be referring to the fact that the checkered trousers have had much "publicity" i.e photo shoots. Perhaps it's "tongue in cheek"?
Could be wrong but that's how it reads to me. winkwink

Certainly they have played a great part in the "marketing" ploy!

by Guest 28.08.16 1:09

worriedmum wrote:I have said this before, but the 'transference' of cadaver odour theory should surely mean that everything that came in contact with anything contaminated would then spread it endlessly-wouldn't it?

Yup!

by Guest 28.08.16 1:12

MayMuse wrote:
I cannot provide you with a direct link at the moment ( maybe try google) as previously stated many media reports/ articles were whooshed, mainly those not in a "favourable" light!

Much as I thought - no link to a direct quote. I will hold the subject in abeyance until such times as someone can come up with a direct quote.

by Guest 28.08.16 1:13

MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Doug D wrote:
If KM’s ‘black & whites’ had gone missing, they would have been missed straight away.

Sorry, I'm not with you - missed by who?
I think Doug D may be referring to the fact that the checkered trousers have had much "publicity" i.e photo shoots. Perhaps it's "tongue in cheek"?
Could be wrong but that's how it reads to me.
Certainly they have played a great part in the "marketing" ploy!

Hopefully Doug D will answer for himself when he has a moment.

by MayMuse 28.08.16 1:22

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
I cannot provide you with a direct link at the moment ( maybe try google) as previously stated many media reports/ articles were whooshed, mainly those not in a "favourable" light!
Much as I thought - no link to a direct quote. I will hold the subject in abeyance until such times as someone can come up with a direct quote.

Wow, are you kidding? How many years have articles been shoved down our throats purporting so many "stories". You act like a know it all and turn your nose at anything anyone else offers in this debate for truth or indeed if they repeat something heard or God forbid they have an opinion of their own. You want links go find them yourself, they have been whooshed and not by me!!!!!!!! The link provided is the McCannfiles copy of media articles, read them and you will soon see what Kate and others say!
You cannot suggest here that you have not heard those sayings before and yet pounce on me like I've committed a crime. Please do not keep on about "evidence", cos along with that are the "suggestions" of what may have happened or may not have happened that is how you can achieve some form of coherent and conducive answers.
Seeing your comments to others also I have thought if you like to antagonise for a reaction, well here is mine now!

Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Should Goncalo Amaral now abandon the PJ theory that Madeleine died AFTER 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007?