The dogs and the "Towel"

I realise that the forum is alive with KMC being made ambassador and Stephen Birch, I on the other hand am still trawling through the case files trying to catch up with all of you .

When the police brought the dogs to the apartment they were given a towel that was said to have been used on MMC , now in holiday apartments there are only a certain number of towels to be used by everyone , why did they not take the clothes that MMC was wearing that day ? the top from Monsoon , surely this would have given a better scent ??

Yes, good question tuom. Unless that towel was specifically used by Madeleine then it would be useless. Now according to this the sniffer dogs were used on May 8th, five days after, so is it to be believed the towels would not have been changed by the cleaners well before then.

[quote]

Kate McCann gave the team a towel she had used to dry Madeleine after a bath.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1042254/Aerial-photo-shows-sniffer-dog-trail-following-Madeleines-scent-took-nearby-car-park.html#ixzz20jLrZdht

I would not expect towels to be changed during a stay in an apartment for just one week. Hotels daily, but apartments just weekly. Is this the towel that is actually supposed to have been Gerry's?

I would imagine the clothes that she was wearing were not available, as she was probably still wearing them when she went missing. After all, didn't Amelie point to the Eyore Pjs and say Maddie's pyjamas or something similar. Whereas the McCann's were telling us that they had two pairs of exactly the same pjs on holiday for both their girls. Not impossible but surely having different Pjs would make it easier for the girls to get themselves ready for bed as they would know which were theirs.

Perhaps all the daytime clothes were put in for a wash at bedtime. They must have shared towels. Holiday lets are not that generous with the amount and perhaps change of towels once in the week. The more obvious item to me was the pink blanket and cuddle cat that she slept with... the last items supposedly that she was in contact with. I presume the search dogs could only track a child walking rather than being carried by someone?

Her pillowcase would have been ideal. It would have, hair, skin, sweat and possibly tears from crying for over two hours the previous night.

If MMC was taken from her bed then she would be wearing the PJ's , so why did they not give the clothes she was wearing that day , the top from monsoon ? ok maybe they were in the wash or whatever, but still they must have had something closer to MMC for the dogs to sniff , of course CC would have been the obvious choice .

My husband and I were on holidays recently and the towels were changed each day , we showered each day but I could not tell you from looking at the pile of towels who used what etc ................

tuom wrote:If MMC was taken from her bed then she would be wearing the PJ's , so why did they not give the clothes she was wearing that day , the top from monsoon ? ok maybe they were in the wash or whatever, but still they must have had something closer to MMC for the dogs to sniff , of course CC would have been the obvious choice .

My husband and I were on holidays recently and the towels were changed each day , we showered each day but I could not tell you from looking at the pile of towels who used what etc ................

I would imagine that the clothes as described by Kate were not there because Madeleine went missing before she went to bed that night. I cannot see either of the items that Kate described in the forensic clothing photos. Although perhaps it was only when writing the book that we are told she was wearing these clothes.

tuom wrote:of course CC would have been the obvious choice .

But don't forget Kate said she took cuddlecat to work with her and it got the stench of death on it from 6 dead bodies....after which she then gave it back to Maddie.

I remember reading that the GNR dogs followed a trail over the car park to the supermarket and back. A trip Gerry had made the previous day.
It may be in Amaral's book. They suspected they'd been given a towel used by Gerry.

The pretty pink dress is never seen again and in the book Kate says it's apricot coloured. It would have been an excellent prop for the press and for the scent and indeed for DNA, as would the tennis shorts. But apparently all clothes were washed on the Saturday at the MW laundry.
(She cannot recall the correct colour of that dress but we get the correct name of the wine they drank - a very selective memory, stored in order of importance?)

Considering the cadaver scent on CC and the trousers - it seems Ms Healy missed the hygiene lectures at university.

Imo the pink dress wasn't at PdL during that holiday, I'm convinced that picture was taken on an earlier visit.

Yes that's my feeling about that photo too. It would explain why the outfit wasn't put on public display - it would have been a tear-jerker of a marketing ploy! The same goes for the tennis outfit and the distinctive pink trousers with embroidery on the knees from the playground photos.

These are very very good points. If your child has gone missing then the last items they wore, touched, played with would be sacred. It has been asked many times why a mother would wash a childs (supposed) favorite toy when it should be covered in her smell and 'touch' so why wash the clothes she had worn that day - if indeed she did, and if she didn't where were they and why were these not given to the sniffer dogs? Yes, the next obvious items would be the bedsheets and pillow , but then there are various inconsistencies surrounding where MM slept.
As you say a towel could have been used by anyone, if you let three children share one toothbrush you are obviously not that bothered about who uses what towel!!
This question couples with the lack of GMs clothing when Eddie and Keela were bought in, did he take a lot more back to UK, his clothes, MMs clothes, toothbrush, hairbrush etc, no one was going to watch him pack or unpack, he wasn't escorted back, he may have been met by a police officer in the UK at the house to collect the hairbrush but there is no proof that it was MMs.
If you were a police officer investigating this case in Portugal would you look through the unpacked suitcases? Where were there suitcases? They moved out of the apartment that night and took essentials but would you have looked through luggage bags that should be empty or piles of what looked like dirty washing?
Where was MMs DNA, if she was actually in that apartment then so must her DNA be?

Thank you all for your comments , its too late now for DNA etc , it should have been CC and it was not , like everything else in this case it makes me want to go well I am off to read some more .

Where is cuddlecat nowadays?

aquila wrote:Where is cuddlecat nowadays?

At work with the Ambassador IMO

tuom wrote: When the police brought the dogs to the apartment they were given a towel that was said to have been used on MMC , now in holiday apartments there are only a certain number of towels to be used by everyone , why did they not take the clothes that MMC was wearing that day ? the top from Monsoon , surely this would have given a better scent ??

I'm confused, Tuom. Because when I first read the files I could have sworn that I also saw that Kate had given the PJ's a towel. But in the files it says that they used the blanket and some clothing. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm. In GA's book it says that they used a towel http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AMARALS_BOOK_ENGLISH.htm and in the book Madeleine it says she offered a choice of blanket and clothing and the PJ's chose the blanket.

Confusion with translation? perhaps towel and blanket are similar words in Portuguese?

bristow wrote:Her pillowcase would have been ideal. It would have, hair, skin, sweat and possibly tears from crying for over two hours the previous night.

It would if that was her crying and not one of the twins.

Let's face it, if that had been my child I would have had any number of items of clothing I could have provided to assist the police and theirdogs. I would also have had no problem providing various sources suitable for dna retrieval.

The evidence, aside from the McCanns, and I'm not talking of hearsay, rumour or supposition, the hard forensic evidence or lack thereof tells me that there is NO evidence to say that she was ever in that apartment. And if she were alleged to have been there almost a week, that in itself should raise alarm bells.It is definitely not what one would expect to find from a forensic point of view in an apartment where a child had been sleeping eating and playing with her siblings for a week. Definitely not. Bloody marvellous cleaning staff those, selective too.

We do however have good evidence for the presence of a cadaver which is unaccounted for, no dna unaccounted for as far as I'm aware, along with a missing child. Couple this with the lack of dna this would appear to me at least, to indicate that whoever was dead in that appt (dog will only alert to human cadaver so it's a who not what), wasn't alive in that aprtment for very long. Just my interpretation of the evidence. We may all read it differently.

monkey mind wrote:

bristow wrote:Her pillowcase would have been ideal. It would have, hair, skin, sweat and possibly tears from crying for over two hours the previous night.

It would if that was her crying and not one of the twins.

Let's face it, if that had been my child I would have had any number of items of clothing I could have provided to assist the police and theirdogs. I would also have had no problem providing various sources suitable for dna retrieval.

The evidence, aside from the McCanns, and I'm not talking of hearsay, rumour or supposition, the hard forensic evidence or lack thereof tells me that there is NO evidence to say that she was ever in that apartment. And if she were alleged to have been there almost a week, that in itself should raise alarm bells.It is definitely not what one would expect to find from a forensic point of view in an apartment where a child had been sleeping eating and playing with her siblings for a week. Definitely not. Bloody marvellous cleaning staff those, selective too.

We do however have good evidence for the presence of a cadaver which is unaccounted for, no dna unaccounted for as far as I'm aware, along with a missing child. Couple this with the lack of dna this would appear to me at least, to indicate that whoever was dead in that appt (dog will only alert to human cadaver so it's a who not what), wasn't alive in that aprtment for very long. Just my interpretation of the evidence. We may all read it differently.

Bingo

monkey mind wrote: We do however have good evidence for the presence of a cadaver which is unaccounted for, no dna unaccounted for as far as I'm aware, along with a missing child. Couple this with the lack of dna this would appear to me at least, to indicate that whoever was dead in that appt (dog will only alert to human cadaver so it's a who not what), wasn't alive in that aprtment for very long. Just my interpretation of the evidence. We may all read it differently.

I'm finding it hard to sift through the forensics because I can't see any evidence of the twins present either. So why would they pick up evidence of Kate, Gerry, Matthew, Russell and David yet none of the children? Maybe I'm reading something wrong.

I think it's for reasons like that that people have often speculated on the nature of this holiday!

It is not humanly possible to have stayed somewhere and NOT leave some of your DNA, if you have stayed somewhere for almost a week you will have been doing the following activities.

Sleeping (bed sheets, pillow cases)
bathing (towels, flannels, sponges, toothbrushes)
clothes (dirty and clean)
toys (played with maybe even chewed)
eaten (knives, forks, spoons, glasses, cups etc) (they removed dna from a glass used by a child they thought may have been MM)
touched the windows
walked on the floors
touched walls
sat on the loo
sat on the sofa
brushed your hair (had elastic bands &/or beads removed - impossible to do without removing at least one strand of hair) (and try doing it to a 3 year old!!)
had your hair washed (plug hole) (we all loose hair every day of our lives even children)

the list goes on and on and on so why is there no DNA in the apartment for MM? Unless of course what happened, occurred the first night.

I go back to my thread Monitor and Millenium. There is something strange about the excuses to not dine at the Millenium, they went there the first night (Saturday) because that is what they thought they were going to do all holiday for breakfast and dinner.
They knew how far away it was yet with 3 very young children in tow they claim they had no buggy, and it was too far to walk with three children and too far for the twins. Feeble excuse. The Tapas Bar was booked, so they say, in hind sight on the Sunday and forceably booked for the whole week as they decided that would be the second best place to eat. Even though they were happy to leave their children every night, so we are told, on the first night it appears no one wanted to spend any time with anyone.
The first night of your holiday is always the best, you are excited, you are winding down, the kids are having a ball playing with other children and enjoying themselves. But not this lot they even declined the offer of a drink at DPs apartment, yet every other night they left them alone while at the Tapas bar. And if they had planned to eat at the Millenium, why the monitors? If there were really monitors why didn't they pick up the crying that occurred for over an hour on the Tuesday night? It may not have been in the apartment where the monitors were but if Mrs Fenn heard it through the walls then surely eventually somebody would have said 'sshh I think I can hear someone cyring!'
In my opinion something happened that first night, perhaps they did go for that glass of wine after all and left the kids alone and MM got up as she was excited and found them missing, climbed on sofa to look out of the window and the rest is history.
That would have meant that MM would have spent very little in the apartment as on arrival they were all over the place at MW meetings, playing in the park and eating at the Millenium probably didn't have a bath or hair wash didn't use any cutlery, maybe only a cup before bedtime, hardly slept in the bed etc etc. It also gave them all week to organise themselves and to clean up. Yep, throw the sub question at me but MM had not even been to the creche at this point so no one had actually really seen her.

Hummingbird - Those very interesting thoughts. An early demise certainly fits in with the lack of DNA.

My thoughts now are: For this to be acheived it would require a massive amount support from friends and not a little 'outside' assistance. In the event of a 'accident' I just wonder how this could be possible at such short notice. Mmm..

Hummingbird wrote:It is not humanly possible to have stayed somewhere and NOT leave some of your DNA, if you have stayed somewhere for almost a week you will have been doing the following activities.

Sleeping (bed sheets, pillow cases)
bathing (towels, flannels, sponges, toothbrushes)
clothes (dirty and clean)
toys (played with maybe even chewed)
eaten (knives, forks, spoons, glasses, cups etc) (they removed dna from a glass used by a child they thought may have been MM)
touched the windows
walked on the floors
touched walls
sat on the loo
sat on the sofa
brushed your hair (had elastic bands &/or beads removed - impossible to do without removing at least one strand of hair) (and try doing it to a 3 year old!!)
had your hair washed (plug hole) (we all loose hair every day of our lives even children)

the list goes on and on and on so why is there no DNA in the apartment for MM? Unless of course what happened, occurred the first night.

I go back to my thread Monitor and Millenium. There is something strange about the excuses to not dine at the Millenium, they went there the first night (Saturday) because that is what they thought they were going to do all holiday for breakfast and dinner.
They knew how far away it was yet with 3 very young children in tow they claim they had no buggy, and it was too far to walk with three children and too far for the twins. Feeble excuse. The Tapas Bar was booked, so they say, in hind sight on the Sunday and forceably booked for the whole week as they decided that would be the second best place to eat. Even though they were happy to leave their children every night, so we are told, on the first night it appears no one wanted to spend any time with anyone.
The first night of your holiday is always the best, you are excited, you are winding down, the kids are having a ball playing with other children and enjoying themselves. But not this lot they even declined the offer of a drink at DPs apartment, yet every other night they left them alone while at the Tapas bar. And if they had planned to eat at the Millenium, why the monitors? If there were really monitors why didn't they pick up the crying that occurred for over an hour on the Tuesday night? It may not have been in the apartment where the monitors were but if Mrs Fenn heard it through the walls then surely eventually somebody would have said 'sshh I think I can hear someone cyring!'
In my opinion something happened that first night, perhaps they did go for that glass of wine after all and left the kids alone and MM got up as she was excited and found them missing, climbed on sofa to look out of the window and the rest is history.
That would have meant that MM would have spent very little in the apartment as on arrival they were all over the place at MW meetings, playing in the park and eating at the Millenium probably didn't have a bath or hair wash didn't use any cutlery, maybe only a cup before bedtime, hardly slept in the bed etc etc. It also gave them all week to organise themselves and to clean up. Yep, throw the sub question at me but MM had not even been to the creche at this point so no one had actually really seen her.

Agreed Hummingbird. Yet the fact remains that dna evidence of M’s existence had to be recovered from England.

As for the Millenium – I’m with you on something occurring that first night though I speculate further than an accident. Some have proposed that there was a substitute as we know. Let us for one minute indulge ourselves and assume this to be correct. Would this not explain their behaviour on that first night? Perhaps they went to the Millenium not because they intended going there all week, but because they intended the exact opposite. They had M with them, perhaps they couldn’t afford for her to be seen there as from the next day it would be a different Maddie. Perhaps this explains why they kept themselves to themselves that night, they didn’t want to see the O’Bs or Oldfields or to be more precise for them to see M. I’m not sure when they had last seen her but I’d wager it was when she was considerably younger. Just speculation you understand.

ladyblackthorn wrote:Hummingbird - Those very interesting thoughts. An early demise certainly fits in with the lack of DNA.

My thoughts now are: For this to be acheived it would require a massive amount support from friends and not a little 'outside' assistance. In the event of a 'accident' I just wonder how this could be possible at such short notice. Mmm..

Well, in the case of a substitute as has been speculated it would require pre planning, but interestingly, those that would need to be in the loop are very few indeed, hardly anyone in fact. The nannies certainly need not know, nor the O'Bs and Oldfields, not even the Payne's but I concede that is a little less likely. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, goes right against the grain for many, but it is worth rolling it aroun the old grey matter just for a few secods from time to time. Like I said, just speculaton.

ladyblackthorn wrote:Hummingbird - Those very interesting thoughts. An early demise certainly fits in with the lack of DNA.

My thoughts now are: For this to be acheived it would require a massive amount support from friends and not a little 'outside' assistance. In the event of a 'accident' I just wonder how this could be possible at such short notice. Mmm..

I too cannot believe that so many people seem to be involved in this as I always thought if you commit a crime the less people in on it the better - less people to keep quiet, but then let us assume that everyone involved - all the Tapas group were somehow involved when the accident occured. It could well have been a tragic accident that happened when the parents were in the same room and MM was climbing on the sofa, maybe some of the other friends were there having a little drink the first night and the kids were running around excitedly playing, those tiled floors are very hard and it only takes a fall in the wrong way for disaster to strike. Yes tragic and yes most of us would call for an ambulance etc etc and deal with the consequences but we have at least 5 trained doctors in this group and maybe the initial reaction was to call for the help of a dr friend. Sadly they were unable to assist and then they were all involved and panic sets in, what do we do? Why didn't we call the emergency services? This isn't going to look good, not one of us could do anything to help so on and so on. A tragic accident turned into a panic turned into a lie turned into an abduction. I would imagine it took a lot if convincing some of the group BUT as they were there and as they didn't do the right thing at the right time it can't have been that difficult to persuade people that this was the right thing to do. Each and every one of them could have called in a favor from a friend in high places and not necessarily told the truth perhaps those that helped from the outside truly do or did at the start believe the persons account. Would explain the reason someone from the group was always missing, perhaps not babysitting but making sure no one came sniffing around! This would make the sub an easier thing to do etc etc if it happened right a the start. I still think it is an horrendous thought and I cannot believe that any parent would do this or not at least show some signs of distress if not loads of distress but then we know the McCanns practically hid themselves away for this holiday, eating alone in the apartment, playing tennis (that doesn't involve loads of people) and then coming out after dark to eat with the friends & the rest of the group, we are told got on with normal holiday things. Anyway probably too far fetched and miles from the truth but then it is just an theory to try to explain why no DNA was found and I have always had a problem with the Millenium story.

Monkey mind sorry you posted after I had written the above. I can totally see your view here and it is just another aspect that as you say needs to be mulled over. If you are suggesting pre planning though where did they get a sub from that night because if MM went to the Millenium with them and the Paynes travelled with them then they must have seen MM that day, then the sub had to appear almost out of thin air and another thing that just struck me. Kids are very perceptive. If they had put a sub in the creche surely the two girls (DPs and JTs) who I believe to have been in the same creche group would have noticed it wasn't MM and that could have been a massive problem. (Unless they knew this other child) they may only have been 3 years old but they would have surely known it wasn't MM and commented to a parent or something along the lines of 'wheres MM Mummy?' Or why isn't MM at the playgroup with us?' and then surely alarm bells would have rung from that parent when MM was supposedly abducted? Ouch my head hurts now!!!

Hummingbird wrote:[quote="Monkey mind sorry you posted after I had written the above. I can totally see your view here and it is just another aspect that as you say needs to be mulled over. If you are suggesting pre planning though where did they get a sub from that night because if MM went to the Millenium with them and the Paynes travelled with them then they must have seen MM that day, then the sub had to appear almost out of thin air and another thing that just struck me. Kids are very perceptive. If they had put a sub in the creche surely the two girls (DPs and JTs) who I believe to have been in the same creche group would have noticed it wasn't MM and that could have been a massive problem. (Unless they knew this other child) they may only have been 3 years old but they would have surely known it wasn't MM and commented to a parent or something along the lines of 'wheres MM Mummy?' Or why isn't MM at the playgroup with us?' and then surely alarm bells would have rung from that parent when MM was supposedly abducted? Ouch my head hurts now!!!

As I say, IF there was a sub, hardly anyone at all had to be aware of it. The O'Brien daughter was indeed in Maddie's group but did she know the real Maddie? How old were the two of them when they last met? She would have just been playing with another child who happened to be called Maddie. The dodgy time with regards to the O'Brien child would have been the first morning of registration, 29th, when the parents were presenting their children, but the McCanns were late that particular morning and the O'Brien child did not attend anyhow. The Payne child would have known as she travelled out there with M, but she wasn't in her group, that is if she attended creche at all, I know the younger Payne child did, but will have to research the older one as I can't recall mention of her being at creche. If she didn't, that is suspicious in itself, and if she didn't then of course the problem does not arise.

monkey mind wrote:

Hummingbird wrote:[quote="Monkey mind sorry you posted after I had written the above. I can totally see your view here and it is just another aspect that as you say needs to be mulled over. If you are suggesting pre planning though where did they get a sub from that night because if MM went to the Millenium with them and the Paynes travelled with them then they must have seen MM that day, then the sub had to appear almost out of thin air and another thing that just struck me. Kids are very perceptive. If they had put a sub in the creche surely the two girls (DPs and JTs) who I believe to have been in the same creche group would have noticed it wasn't MM and that could have been a massive problem. (Unless they knew this other child) they may only have been 3 years old but they would have surely known it wasn't MM and commented to a parent or something along the lines of 'wheres MM Mummy?' Or why isn't MM at the playgroup with us?' and then surely alarm bells would have rung from that parent when MM was supposedly abducted? Ouch my head hurts now!!!

As I say, IF there was a sub, hardly anyone at all had to be aware of it. The O'Brien daughter was indeed in Maddie's group but did she know the real Maddie? How old were the two of them when they last met? She would have just been playing with another child who happened to be called Maddie. The dodgy time with regards to the O'Brien child would have been the first morning of registration, 29th, when the parents were presenting their children, but the McCanns were late that particular morning and the O'Brien child did not attend anyhow. The Payne child would have known as she travelled out there with M, but she wasn't in her group, that is if she attended creche at all, I know the younger Payne child did, but will have to research the older one as I can't recall mention of her being at creche. If she didn't, that is suspicious in itself, and if she didn't then of course the problem does not arise.

And children of that age who are just playing together in a holiday creche and having an enjoyable time wouldn't bother to say 'that Madelene isn't Madeleine' because she was called Madelene. And for all we know may have been 3 nearly 4 and have blonde hair so look very similar.

One wrote:

tuom wrote: When the police brought the dogs to the apartment they were given a towel that was said to have been used on MMC , now in holiday apartments there are only a certain number of towels to be used by everyone , why did they not take the clothes that MMC was wearing that day ? the top from Monsoon , surely this would have given a better scent ??

I'm confused, Tuom. Because when I first read the files I could have sworn that I also saw that Kate had given the PJ's a towel. But in the files it says that they used the blanket and some clothing. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm. In GA's book it says that they used a towel http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AMARALS_BOOK_ENGLISH.htm and in the book Madeleine it says she offered a choice of blanket and clothing and the PJ's chose the blanket.

One, yes there was a blanket , iirc it was a pink blanket and it was left on the bed with cuddlecat , I think this blanket went missing , I will have a look again now ....

I said before that I don't think that they planted another child to act as Madeleine as the creche staff would recognise that it wasn't her when they saw the real photo's released afterwards. I'm sure at least one would have been suspicious and said something.

Another reason why I think this scenario is farfetched is because what child of that age would be able to lie about being someone they are not?

A 3 year old child wouldn't go along with suddenly being called a different name to their own by creche staff they hardly know. Even if the parents had told them to pretend that there name was Madeleine, they wouldn't understand what was being asked of them and wouldn't be able to keep up the pretence. The child would say "My name isn't Madeleine it is ..... " or ignore the person calling them as its not them. Very young children hate to lie to strangers, you just couldn't make them do it, especially not that young.

I don't know much about the creche records but didn't all of the tapas lot put their children in their at some point. So wouldn't they then need a cover child for the child that acted as Madeleine if you see what I mean.

That's an awful lot of relying on other people to act in a certain way or to not be very observant that could be very easily caught out.

The McCann's really arn't that clever/stupid.

Olive_Boyle wrote:I said before that I don't think that they planted another child to act as Madeleine as the creche staff would recognise that it wasn't her when they saw the real photo's released afterwards. I'm sure at least one would have been suspicious and said something.

Another reason why I think this scenario is farfetched is because what child of that age would be able to lie about being someone they are not?

A 3 year old child wouldn't go along with suddenly being called a different name to their own by creche staff they hardly know. Even if the parents had told them to pretend that there name was Madeleine, they wouldn't understand what was being asked of them and wouldn't be able to keep up the pretence. The child would say "My name isn't Madeleine it is ..... " or ignore the person calling them as its not them. Very young children hate to lie to strangers, you just couldn't make them do it, especially not that young.

I don't know much about the creche records but didn't all of the tapas lot put their children in their at some point. So wouldn't they then need a cover child for the child that acted as Madeleine if you see what I mean.

That's an awful lot of relying on other people to act in a certain way or to not be very observant that could be very easily caught out.

The McCann's really arn't that clever/stupid.

But what if the girl was also called Madelene, just a different spelling?