Re: 7 kids were left in McCann flat

by guest 60 19.06.11 13:08

........vol 9 P 2315 The area of the pillow of the bed from
the minor disappeared was inspected with the intention to detect the presence of
some smell [aroma] characteristic of volatile
substances typical of chloroform or ether, this search proving
negative

There proceeded the search for possible blood traces in all of
the apartment, using a variable- wave light source appropriate for the task.This
search resulted in the detection of several spots having a red-brown tone that
suggested blood, which were subjected to a "Kastle-Mayer" peroxidise test, the
result obtained, in all cases, being negative.

There also proceeded the
observation and search for blood traces inside the apartment using a chemical
product to find latent blood traces. In the application of the referred product
no results characteristic of the presence of blood traces were
found

Analyst report of the first 11
volumes

Apart from
all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results
of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific
Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned
where no vestige of blood was found.

by whatever 19.06.11 13:19

guest 60 wrote:........vol 9 P 2315 The area of the pillow of the bed from
the minor disappeared was inspected with the intention to detect the presence of
some smell [aroma] characteristic of volatile
substances typical of chloroform or ether, this search proving
negative

There proceeded the search for possible blood traces in all of
the apartment, using a variable- wave light source appropriate for the task.This
search resulted in the detection of several spots having a red-brown tone that
suggested blood, which were subjected to a "Kastle-Mayer" peroxidise test, the
result obtained, in all cases, being negative.

There also proceeded the
observation and search for blood traces inside the apartment using a chemical
product to find latent blood traces. In the application of the referred product
no results characteristic of the presence of blood traces were
found

Analyst report of the first 11
volumes

Apart from
all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results
of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific
Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned
where no vestige of blood was found.

Just thought I would add the link [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by sweetex 29.04.12 17:20

I came upon this now while reading on the forum a bit.

It makes a lot more sense to me that the "sick adult" attended to the kids in the evening. Have them all in the same place makes things much easier. But ofcourse there could be a lot of theories branching from this.

I would say, Madeleine died because of an accident, whether falling, being overdosed or whatever the case under supervision of one of the other's in the group? Wasnt there somewhere, where I read about Kate had to show Jane how to sedate the kids? Or something to that effect? Could it be that Jane was responsible for the kids the night of the "accident"?

I'm sorry I'll have to go back and see when exactly Jane Tanner was sick, or even if she was. Will she be able to keep a secret like that? Or it could be that Kate and Gerry gave M meds, before the other adult took over to watch the kids.

by **tigger** 29.04.12 17:57

This is an interesting read again. Not least because of Clarrie's wonderful statement that it's harder to get 7 children to sleep. He completely missed the fact that it should have been 8.

'It wasn't supposed to happen like that ...Kate said' Rosa's post. on page 1. I hadn't heard that before. So something went wrong. Gerry on the night of the 3rd calling it a 'disaster'. A disaster is normally a number of circumstances that have come together to create this. It also implies a plan gone wrong.

Somewhere else I've read, when Gerry moved the twins out of 5a on the night of the 3rd, he said he was taking them to their 'own' apartment. So that implies that the children's apartment certainly wasn't 5a.

by sweetex 29.04.12 20:17

Very interesting read.

Tbh I dont think she was killed by the hand of one of their friends (accident or not). Well unless they are all psychopaths, because I can't think for the life of me how anybody can accidentally kill a little girl of a friend and keep quiet about it.

BUT she could have been sedated by either Kate or Gerry, and had an accident while under supervision of one of the friends.

I have read more than once (and I will look for the link) where Kate said it was not suppose to happen like this. Which tells me, something was expected, but not THIS?

I have also read that when the police got to the apartment the twins were gone but also the sheets in the cots. So it could be that none of the children were sleeping in 5A that night, and that all of them were in O'Brien's apartment seeing that they had the sick daughter, and were more in the apartment than at Tapas. I will have to go back and cross reference a few things here, but to me this is quite interesting and a theory to be pursued.

by **tigger** 29.04.12 20:24

sweetex wrote:Very interesting read.

Tbh I dont think she was killed by the hand of one of their friends (accident or not). Well unless they are all psychopaths, because I can't think for the life of me how anybody can accidentally kill a little girl of a friend and keep quiet about it.

BUT she could have been sedated by either Kate or Gerry, and had an accident while under supervision of one of the friends.

I have read more than once (and I will look for the link) where Kate said it was not suppose to happen like this. Which tells me, something was expected, but not THIS?

I have also read that when the police got to the apartment the twins were gone but also the sheets in the cots. So it could be that none of the children were sleeping in 5A that night, and that all of them were in O'Brien's apartment seeing that they had the sick daughter, and were more in the apartment than at Tapas. I will have to go back and cross reference a few things here, but to me this is quite interesting and a theory to be pursued.

David Payne also said something on the lines of 'we were expecting something to happen but not this..'

by Guest 29.04.12 20:26

David Payne said this:

"We know they didn't do it. One of our party saw Madeleine being abducted. We were waiting for something to happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this."

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

by friedtomatoes 29.04.12 20:38

admin wrote:David Payne said this:

"We know they didn't do it. One of our party saw Madeleine being abducted. We were waiting for something to happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this."

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

no,one of your party saw a pair of feet, unless they were superman with x ray vision they couldnt possibly have seen anything specific

by **tigger** 30.04.12 12:25

admin wrote:David Payne said this:

"We know they didn't do it. One of our party saw Madeleine being abducted. We were waiting for something to happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this."

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

Thank you admin. A very strange thing to say. That is from a newspaper interview? Or the rogatory? Sorry there's no hurry, just as you already have the quote.
So that's indications that probably most of the T9 knew something was going to happen.
That's DP, RM and Kate. Respectively:
Something was going to happen - but didn't think it would be this.
There were six doctors to help if she'd had a bump on the head.
It wasn't supposed to happen like this.

by Miraflores 30.04.12 12:34

David Payne said this:

"We know they didn't do it. One of our
party saw Madeleine being abducted. We were waiting for something to
happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this."

Put in those terms it's plainly absurd! Imagine - you are walking back to your friends and you see a stranger carrying your friend's daughter away. You see the child's dad standing nearby. You don't call out, 'Hey you, stop' or 'Hey [Dad's name], that man's making off with your child'. You wait for a couple of hours and said, 'oh by the way, I saw her being carried off'.

That's why I find her statement in that form totally unbelievable. That she saw someone carrying something - yes, maybe. Only a few hours later did she put two and two together and make 5.

Sorry if that's all so obvious - I just needed to say it.

by russiandoll 30.04.12 15:16

Miraflores wrote:
David Payne said this:

"We know they didn't do it. One of our
party saw Madeleine being abducted. We were waiting for something to
happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this."

Put in those terms it's plainly absurd! Imagine - you are walking back to your friends and you see a stranger carrying your friend's daughter away. You see the child's dad standing nearby. You don't call out, 'Hey you, stop' or 'Hey [Dad's name], that man's making off with your child'. You wait for a couple of hours and said, 'oh by the way, I saw her being carried off'.

That's why I find her statement in that form totally unbelievable. That she saw someone carrying something - yes, maybe. Only a few hours later did she put two and two together and make 5.

Sorry if that's all so obvious - I just needed to say it.

I think JT clamed she was walking away from the tapas group to do her check, saw a child being carried across the top of the road, did not see it as anything sinister as it was common to see kids carried back to their accommodation from the evening creche....only after the disappearance did she realise this was probably Maddie. The only thing she registered as odd pre -disappearance was that the child was barefoot and it was quite cold. The child changed between statements from not being covered by a blanket to being covered. will check

by Guest 30.04.12 15:30

I think that the comment David Payne made about " we knew something was going to happen, but not this" ( or words to that effect) was regarding the Mccanns being made arguidos. I don`t think it was made earlier than that.

by Guest 30.04.12 15:34

alison wrote:I think that the comment David Payne made about " we knew something was going to happen, but not this" ( or words to that effect) was regarding the Mccanns being made arguidos. I don`t think it was made earlier than that.

I think you are right alison. The comment was made 10th Sept I think just after they were made arguidos and the announcement of the full DNA match, and the article has all the tapas saying how they believe in the McCanns innocence, and that was the comment David Payne made.

by TheTruthWillOut 30.04.12 15:42

alison wrote:I think that the comment David Payne made about " we knew something was going to happen, but not this" ( or words to that effect) was regarding the Mccanns being made arguidos. I don`t think it was made earlier than that.

Yes, this is what I remember too.

by **tigger** 30.04.12 15:43

candyfloss wrote:
alison wrote:I think that the comment David Payne made about " we knew something was going to happen, but not this" ( or words to that effect) was regarding the Mccanns being made arguidos. I don`t think it was made earlier than that.

I think you are right alison. The comment was made 10th Sept I think just after they were made arguidos and the announcement of the full DNA match, and the article has all the tapas saying how they believe in the McCanns innocence, and that was the comment David Payne made.

That makes a lot more sense. I'd heard half of that remark before and also thought it was with reference to the disappearance.
It's as well to get it right. Thank you for doing that - I'm fully aware that we're not in the business of misinformation! We leave that to others.

by monkey mind 30.04.12 16:26

russiandoll wrote:[quote="
I think JT clamed she was walking away from the tapas group to do her check, saw a child being carried across the top of the road, did not see it as anything sinister as it was common to see kids carried back to their accommodation from the evening creche....only after the disappearance did she realise this was probably Maddie. The only thing she registered as odd pre -disappearance was that the child was barefoot and it was quite cold. The child changed between statements from not being covered by a blanket to being covered. will check

This is covered at the end of "the missing blanket" thread. It appears on the 4th May JT specifically mentions the absence of a blanket. The first suggestion that bundleman had a child in a blanket surfaces in the press in August then several times in Sept, one assumes this may well have been after the PJ asked for Maddie's blanket and after Eddie and Keela did their stuff. In JT's interview to Leicester constabulary she makes no specific reference to either the absence or presence of a blanket. However if one had not read her 4th May statement one could be forgiven for thinking there was indeed a blanket presence, it would be most easy to infer such as she talks about when they used to carry their own children home their little feet would always pop out of the bottom of the blanket.

I don't recall her saying she didn't see anything sinister as it was common place to see children being carried back to their apartments, must have missed it. Where was that?

by russiandoll 30.04.12 17:18

Will look for that, Monkey mind....I recall reading that somewhere and thought it was JT; apologies if I am mistaken in attributing that to her.
About a child being covered, was that a media creation? Again,thanks for correcting my error
[shall now go and read the files! ]

by monkey mind 30.04.12 18:50

russiandoll wrote: Will look for that, Monkey mind....I recall reading that somewhere and thought it was JT; apologies if I am mistaken in attributing that to her.
About a child being covered, was that a media creation? Again,thanks for correcting my error
[shall now go and read the files! ]

You may not be mistaken in attributing that to her though I don't recall her saying it. On the thread mentioned above Candyfloss I think mentioned that it was strange to speak of something that was not there and I suggested that perhaps the reason for this was that if someone pointed out she may have simply seen someone returning to their apartment from the evening baby sitting facility then she could point out the absence of a blanket as proof otherwise.

It seems that the notion of bundleman may well have been a media creation first surfacing in August (dates on other thread) and nobody said anything to put the record straight which isn't that mystifying when one considers the blanket was now missing..... which IS mystifying as on the 3rd bundleman didn't have it and couldn't have had it as it was photographed in situ on the 4th......

by russiandoll 30.04.12 19:20

just checked, in her RI and a statement in 07 she referred to adults carrying children back from creche so found a man carrying a child unremarkable, it was the speed he walked at and lack of blanket for a child that struck her as unusual.
Interesting that she decribed the man for not taking care of the child properly as " a bit of a bad parent...like us"

by **tigger** 30.04.12 19:26

There's no blanket on the 4th May.
Around the 25th May, in a newspaper article there is a child wrapped in a blanket
In the rogatories she manages to suggest a blanket without actually saying there was one.

But I also read somewhere that the blanket (bundle man) played a part around September. Whether that was just media or official, I don't know.

I think the blanket was also going to be a problem if she wanted to describe the pyjamas, which she did with ever greater accuracy, especially the pink aspect.
But I think her initial statement, with the 'no blanket' in it and not a lot on the pyjamas was the most revealing.

by Spaniel 30.04.12 20:07

To save all of you going down the wrong route, when is a blanket not a blanket? When it's a comforter."

Mine never had one as she was the one and only child, but I understand a comforter is probably a piece of a childhood blanket that comforts a child when siblings arrive, normally hemmed by mum and carried around, sometimes called a "security blanket."

I understand some children will not be separated from their blanket, and mum has to wash it while they're asleep, returning it before they're awake.

Sorry for butting in but I didn't want you all going down a blind alley, by thinking the small comforter you see next to the pillow, was a blanket large enough to wrap Madeleine in to keep warm.

by Spaniel 30.04.12 20:20

Figure it. No pink blanket was missing from Mark Warner, as far as we know. No one even uses blankets on beds these days, apart from babies, that only leaves the parents to pack a single bed blanket into their suitcase and transport it by air to Pt. Hardly likely!

Look at the pics again. The "blanket" is the size of a hand towel.

ETA. Of course there are sheets and blankets at MW as in most hot climates. so many years since I had a holiday, I'd forgotten.

by Nina 30.04.12 20:27

So she had a comfort blanket, and a cuddlecat for comfort. I wonder what the twins had for comfort ?

by Ribisl 30.04.12 20:27

Spaniel wrote:To save all of you going down the wrong route, when is a blanket not a blanket? When it's a comforter."

Mine never had one as she was the one and only child, but I understand a comforter is probably a piece of a childhood blanket that comforts a child when siblings arrive, normally hemmed by mum and carried around, sometimes called a "security blanket."

I understand some children will not be separated from their blanket, and mum has to wash it while they're asleep, returning it before they're awake.

Sorry for butting in but I didn't want you all going down a blind alley, by thinking the small comforter you see next to the pillow, was a blanket large enough to wrap Madeleine in to keep warm.

I may be mistaken but I remember seeing Madeleine's pink comfort blanket on her bed in the PJ photo. So if JT claims to have seen Madeleine wrapped up in a blanket then the abductor(s) must have brought one to keep her warm. dance

by Spaniel 30.04.12 20:52

The very first I heard on the news, was of "a man carrying a bundle." (I then visualised a roll of carpet, slung over the shoulder.) That morphed into an egg and through to the full blown drawing we all see today.

If that small piece of "blankie" that Madeleine couldn't be parted from was snaffled by KM? Well I'll say no more, but I understand.

Log in for more topics