A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment



8:57 AM

(17) Comments


There are many, many “Oops… I think I’ve just confessed” moments in Kate McCanns book, “Madeleine”.

This is one of them. On pages 241 and 242:

This is what she says:

“Carlos still looked very concerned. There was a great deal we needed to discuss, he told us. He reiterated that the situation was not good. The PJ had a lot of ‘evidence’ against us, and I was certain to be made an arguida in the morning.

First he cited video footage the police had shot of the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs in apartment 5A and also around our hire car. I would be shown this on my return to the police station, he said. Presumably repeating what he had been told by the PJ, he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.

I was totally perplexed. Although this news, if true, seemed to add weight to the possibility that Madeleine had at the very least been physically harmed, unusually I didn’t dwell too much on the frightening implications. I can only assume this was because what we were being told didn’t make sense. If, as the PJ alleged, Madeleine’s blood was in the boot of our car, which we had not rented until 27 May, how on earth had it got there? Did this mean someone had planted it? I could see no other explanation. The police theory, it seemed, was that we had hidden Madeleine’s body, then moved it later, in the car, and buried it elsewhere.”

See the confession?

No? Let me clarify: “Did this mean someone had planted it?”

The simple fact that her mind finds possible to generate the idea that someone may have planted Maddie’s DNA in the boot of a car rented many days after her supposed abduction, means one and only one very important thing, and that is she’s telling us all that she knows that Maddie’s body was accessible from which to withdraw samples from and plant them somewhere else.

Let me put it this way. If I was to tell you that I’d just seen a monkey dressed in a tuxedo smoking a cigar in the boor of your car, which of the following questions would pop immediately into your mind:
- has this woman lost it completely or is she on hard drugs or something?
- who put the monkey there, and who made a tuxedo that size?

Yes, the FIRST is the logical thought because of the impossibility and infeasibility of the whole idea.

But that is not what she seems to be asking, is it? She goes for the SECOND, which she knows, for certain, to be POSSIBLE and FEASIBLE. Possible because she knows the why, feasible because she knows the how.

Yes...those words means she was working on the theory, in her own mind, of how to get herself out of this situation, not the practicality of where DNA would have to have come from.

If she knew, as she keeps telling us she knows, that Maddie was ABDUCTED, and that the car had been rented much later, her reaction would have been “There’s a mistake, that’s IMPOSSIBLE!”.

How feasible would it be to plant Maddie’s DNA in ANY PLACE if she was indeed ABDUCTED? Only by the abductor.

She does say, on page 242 “The only conclusion I could draw was that we’ve been framed, though this seemed completely implausible”

Yes, but that would mean that the “ABDUCTOR would have abducted and killed Maddie, kept the body with him/her, took some samples from it, continued to maintain surveillance on the couple, and, ONCE AGAIN, would have to have waited for an opportunity whereupon they would have left their car unattended and unlocked.

Talk about conspiracy theories… because if it wasn't the abductor, who could have been? Not the PJ, unless she's implying the PJ abducted Maddie... And if it was the abductor, why such determination and vengefulness?

So, basically, she’s CONFESSING, very LOUDLY and CLEARLY, that she knows that there was a source from which that found DNA had come from: the unabducted Maddie’s body.

http://textusa.blogspot.com/

It is the same sort of confession where Kate acknowledges the presence of cadaver odour on her clothes and cuddlecat by saying she dealt with 6 corpses before the holiday because she even took cuddlecat to work with her.

The same sort of confession where Kate acknowledges the presence of blood behind the sofa by saying Madeleine may have had a nosebleed.

Confessions that still allow them to walk free and still take millions of pounds from the public to pay for their mortgage and new celebrity lifestyle.

This is a very poor article.

Firstly, if you all believe that Kate McCann has managed to pull the wool over most of the world's eyes by taking part in one of the biggest decpetions of recent times and completely avoided punishment then she is not a dimwit, but some sort of fiendishly clever master criminal.

Secondly, seeing an "almost confession" in Kate's book is really scraping the barrel, and very badly thought through.

Textusa says that the first thought Kate McCann should have had on being presented with the news that Madeleine's DNA was found in the boot of the car was "this is completely impossible and unfeasible", which in fact is exactly what Kate writes when she says "I was totally perplexed...what we were being told didn’t make sense"

So, where exactly is the confession? When the police, the authorities themselves tell you that your daughter's DNA has been found in the boot of your car, the last thing you are going to think is that they are lying to you (which in fact they were), but after the initial perplexity and incomprehension of what you've been told, you're going to try and seek some sort of an explanation whicm might logically account for it, aren't you?

I dont see this as an admission of guilt although the fact she states that “The only conclusion I could draw was that we’ve been framed, though this seemed completely implausible” which does make me wonder what she thinks was plausible and how this could have been achieved.

Kates book in its entirity is a load of tosh in my opinion and seems to me to have been poorly thought out and actually is probably based on her diaries at the time as is in a very simplistic selfish style. (particularly as she seems to include information that if she had taken the time to read the PJ files properly - which she said in the book she had) then she would have seen the inconstencies in it (so called damaged window / shutters being an immediate example).

I am just surprised with all the lawyers that they seem to have available that this book has appeared in the form that it has.

I must agree that Kate is not dim if she has perpetrated a gigantic hoax but I doubt that things would have progressed the way they have without all the help she's had over the years.

So, where exactly is the confession? When the police, the authorities themselves tell you that your daughter's DNA has been found in the boot of your car, the last thing you are going to think is that they are lying to you (which in fact they were), but after the initial perplexity and incomprehension of what you've been told, you're going to try and seek some sort of an explanation whicm might logically account for it, aren't you?



[/quote]

I don't know if it's a confession, I do know however, that if the words are correct in the post (which I think is very well written), then this is another conundrum created by the McCann people to explain away any alternative theory other than abduction. Of course there is no evidence of any abduction having taken place, only the statements of the McCanns and the Tanner woman.

Can you explain to me where the lie from the PJ comes in please. Is it the reference specifically to "DNA being found in boot"?

Finally what's happend to the McCanns mouthpiece?

The police told Kate McCann that Madeleine's DNA had been found in the boot of the car, but it hadn't. That was the lie. They found no such thing, only a bunch of DNA from various McCann family members that was too mixed-up for any meaningful interpretation or conclusion.

If the police had actually found Madeleine's DNA in that car, incontrovertible evidence that she had been placed in the boot, then the McCanns would undoubtedly have been arrested. They didn't and they weren't!

Ringo wrote:The police told Kate McCann that Madeleine's DNA had been found in the boot of the car, but it hadn't. That was the lie. They found no such thing, only a bunch of DNA from various McCann family members that was too mixed-up for any meaningful interpretation or conclusion.

If the police had actually found Madeleine's DNA in that car, incontrovertible evidence that she had been placed in the boot, then the McCanns would undoubtedly have been arrested. They didn't and they weren't!

Wrong. They found 15 markers that match to Madeleine McCann. It is the interpretation afterwards and the u-turn in the results supplied to the Portuguese, is what needs to be explained. Let's hope the Met look into that.

In the US they will convict a person on as low as 10 or 13 markers. In Portugal they legally require 19.

Ringo wrote:This is a very poor article.

Firstly, if you all believe that Kate McCann has managed to pull the wool over most of the world's eyes by taking part in one of the biggest decpetions of recent times and completely avoided punishment then she is not a dimwit, but some sort of fiendishly clever master criminal.

Can we debunk this myth once and for all. This isn't one of the biggest deceptions of recent times and she doesn't have to be a criminal mastermind to pull it off and indeed through her contradicitons she has clearly proven that she isn't. If she were then there would be no doubts about her innocence, would there?

This is a case where a series of lies were told to cover up the truth and is replicated in many other child homicides perpertrated by parents.

I would argue they haven't pulled the wool over most people's eyes either.

What they have done is to gather money on the basis of finding their daughter and used it to threaten and sue anyone who dares accuse them or not agree with their theory whilst at the same time using their influence to steer the UK media in the direction they choose. That seems to be more Gerry's doing than Kate's.

And may i finish by saying she has "completely avoided punishment" only upto now. Who knows whether they can do that in the future.

Well said "Me" I agree completely with your post

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:The police told Kate McCann that Madeleine's DNA had been found in the boot of the car, but it hadn't. That was the lie. They found no such thing, only a bunch of DNA from various McCann family members that was too mixed-up for any meaningful interpretation or conclusion.

If the police had actually found Madeleine's DNA in that car, incontrovertible evidence that she had been placed in the boot, then the McCanns would undoubtedly have been arrested. They didn't and they weren't!

Wrong. They found 15 markers that match to Madeleine McCann. It is the interpretation afterwards and the u-turn in the results supplied to the Portuguese, is what needs to be explained. Let's hope the Met look into that.

In the US they will convict a person on as low as 10 or 13 markers. In Portugal they legally require 19.

So, in your opinion, despite the fact that the FSS themselves said that the sample contained DNA markers from several profiles and was not menaingful in any way, you are convinced that Madeleine's was one of them? Can you tell me why, and also whether or not you accept that if minute traces of Madeleine's DNA was indeed included that it could easily have arrived there by purely innocent means, ie from other items that she had come into contact with? For example if you bought a new car and then filled your boot with a selection of your kids' toys and clothes or other effects, that some of their DNA might transfer to the boot, even if your kids had never set foot inside your new car?

Me wrote:

Ringo wrote:This is a very poor article.

Firstly, if you all believe that Kate McCann has managed to pull the wool over most of the world's eyes by taking part in one of the biggest decpetions of recent times and completely avoided punishment then she is not a dimwit, but some sort of fiendishly clever master criminal.

Can we debunk this myth once and for all. This isn't one of the biggest deceptions of recent times and she doesn't have to be a criminal mastermind to pull it off and indeed through her contradicitons she has clearly proven that she isn't. If she were then there would be no doubts about her innocence, would there?

This is a case where a series of lies were told to cover up the truth and is replicated in many other child homicides perpertrated by parents.

I would argue they haven't pulled the wool over most people's eyes either.

What they have done is to gather money on the basis of finding their daughter and used it to threaten and sue anyone who dares accuse them or not agree with their theory whilst at the same time using their influence to steer the UK media in the direction they choose. That seems to be more Gerry's doing than Kate's.

And may i finish by saying she has "completely avoided punishment" only upto now. Who knows whether they can do that in the future.

let's have your evidence that *most* people don't believe the McCanns' are innocent.

Also, do you know of any other similar 'dimwitted' criminal who has kept themselves in the public eye for years, continuously drawing attention to themselves and their crime, made countless TV appearances, written a best-selling book, appeared on every chat show going, had the support of countless celebrities, journalists, politicians and religious representatives, and who is just about as far away from avoiding punishment for their crime as it is possible to be? You don't consider it criminally fiendishly clever to have committed such a serious crime as the hasty cover-up of a dead body in a foreign country without recourse to a car, disposal equipment etc, without that body ever coming to light, and without leaving a single piece of concrete evidence to put you in the frame? Wow.

Ringo wrote:
Can you tell me why, and also whether or not you accept that if minute traces of Madeleine's DNA was indeed included that it could easily have arrived there by purely innocent means, ie from other items that she had come into contact with? For example if you bought a new car and then filled your boot with a selection of your kids' toys and clothes or other effects, that some of their DNA might transfer to the boot, even if your kids had never set foot inside your new car?

Goncalo Amaral was very specific about what he found in the car.

What was found was bodily fluids, which as they have seen many times before, is consistent with a body that has been refrigerated (frozen) and then moved. Not a body that has been buried and subsequently mummified.

No, I do not accept that what was found in the car could have ever been transferred innocently.

Ringo wrote:
without leaving a single piece of concrete evidence to put you in the frame?

We may have that concrete proof very soon Ringo, when the Met take a much closer look at the creche records.

If they find that someone was entering another childs name and they failed to mention it when being questioned. It will be time. It may also open up pandora's box as to what really happened that week.

Ringo wrote:

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:The police told Kate McCann that Madeleine's DNA had been found in the boot of the car, but it hadn't. That was the lie. They found no such thing, only a bunch of DNA from various McCann family members that was too mixed-up for any meaningful interpretation or conclusion.

If the police had actually found Madeleine's DNA in that car, incontrovertible evidence that she had been placed in the boot, then the McCanns would undoubtedly have been arrested. They didn't and they weren't!

Wrong. They found 15 markers that match to Madeleine McCann. It is the interpretation afterwards and the u-turn in the results supplied to the Portuguese, is what needs to be explained. Let's hope the Met look into that.

In the US they will convict a person on as low as 10 or 13 markers. In Portugal they legally require 19.

So, in your opinion, despite the fact that the FSS themselves said that the sample contained DNA markers from several profiles and was not menaingful in any way, you are convinced that Madeleine's was one of them? Can you tell me why, and also whether or not you accept that if minute traces of Madeleine's DNA was indeed included that it could easily have arrived there by purely innocent means, ie from other items that she had come into contact with? For example if you bought a new car and then filled your boot with a selection of your kids' toys and clothes or other effects, that some of their DNA might transfer to the boot, even if your kids had never set foot inside your new car?

You mean the same FSS that said they did not test hairs from the car because they were not blond enough??

That statement shows that either;
they are the worst forensic lab in the world
or
they are deliberately excluding evidence on a false finding

You choose what's worse.

Precisely lj.

This is the same lab that refused to do the most basic of tests on all of the hairs found in the car for corpse banding.

Corpse banding not present = hairs came from a living person.
Corpse banding is present = hairs came from a dead person.

It was that simple. Why did they refuse to cooperate?

Ringo wrote:

Me wrote:

Ringo wrote:This is a very poor article.

Firstly, if you all believe that Kate McCann has managed to pull the wool over most of the world's eyes by taking part in one of the biggest decpetions of recent times and completely avoided punishment then she is not a dimwit, but some sort of fiendishly clever master criminal.

Can we debunk this myth once and for all. This isn't one of the biggest deceptions of recent times and she doesn't have to be a criminal mastermind to pull it off and indeed through her contradicitons she has clearly proven that she isn't. If she were then there would be no doubts about her innocence, would there?

This is a case where a series of lies were told to cover up the truth and is replicated in many other child homicides perpertrated by parents.

I would argue they haven't pulled the wool over most people's eyes either.

What they have done is to gather money on the basis of finding their daughter and used it to threaten and sue anyone who dares accuse them or not agree with their theory whilst at the same time using their influence to steer the UK media in the direction they choose. That seems to be more Gerry's doing than Kate's.

And may i finish by saying she has "completely avoided punishment" only upto now. Who knows whether they can do that in the future.

let's have your evidence that *most* people don't believe the McCanns' are innocent.

Also, do you know of any other similar 'dimwitted' criminal who has kept themselves in the public eye for years, continuously drawing attention to themselves and their crime, made countless TV appearances, written a best-selling book, appeared on every chat show going, had the support of countless celebrities, journalists, politicians and religious representatives, and who is just about as far away from avoiding punishment for their crime as it is possible to be? You don't consider it criminally fiendishly clever to have committed such a serious crime as the hasty cover-up of a dead body in a foreign country without recourse to a car, disposal equipment etc, without that body ever coming to light, and without leaving a single piece of concrete evidence to put you in the frame? Wow.

I don't have to provide evidence because, unlike you, i caveated my reply by saying " i would argue".

You made a statement of fact so let's have your evidence that *most* people believe they are innocent then!

I'd suggest from my own experiences though that if you look at many online articles and comments relating to the McCann’s the number of people who don't believe them far outweighs the number who do.

Where have i said she was a ""dimwit"? That's your word and not mine.

I have never said that because i don't think she is. What i have said and inferred is that the web of lies and untruths her and her husband have spun frequently keep catching them out.

As Mark Twain said "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything".

They have chosen to stay in the public eye to proclaim their innocence and validate their theory. The case is shelved and there is insufficient evidence to charge them with at this stage so they are not taking any risks in "continuously drawing attention to themselves and their crime, made countless TV appearances, written a best-selling book, appeared on every chat show going", are they?

There is no risk to them in doing any of this, in fact there are only upsides and it is entirely logical that, given there is not enough evidence to prosecute them and the case has been shelved, they should continue pursuing their "wider agenda" which is:

1) Convince people they are innocent
2) Reinforce their version of events in the minds of the public
3) To continue asking for people to donate to a limited company "fund"
3) To use that money to Carter Ruck any dissenters
5) And to pay off that pesky mortgage and keep a few of the "boys" in jobs.

So when you look at what risks they have taken in doing this and compare and contrast that with the rewards and upsides you don't have to be a criminal mastermind to work out that their actions are a non brainer. All they’re doing is trying to make (for their ends) the best of the situation they are in.

Where is that celebrity support now? Where's JK Rowling et al? I've not seen their support much recently. Have you? Religious leaders you say? You mean like Father Jose Manuel Pacheco, yes he's been fully behind them hasn't he?

And how many of these celebrities, religious people and journalists have actually read the files? Why should the support of these people, who we don't know whether they've actually read the details, be important or proof positive of innocence?

It seems to me that as a result of their media and public relations work and team they have created a bandwagon that those who haven't read the details can attach themselves to.

For example I've never heard a celebrity or religious leader's view on the veracity of Jane Tanner's sighting in relation to her subsequent undercover operation in the van, and the damage it did to her credibility, have you? Why do you think that is?

You don't consider it criminally fiendishly clever to have committed such a serious crime as the hasty cover-up of a dead body in a foreign country without recourse to a car, disposal equipment etc, without that body ever coming to light, and without leaving a single piece of concrete evidence to put you in the frame?

They have done well to hide what they could so far but "criminally fiendishly clever", no i don't think it is.

Something happened in that apartment, they then moved the body, cleaned the scene (they worked in hospitals so will know all about cleaning, won't they)and came up with a sighting of someone taking her, which appears to be the standard parent response in unsolved child homicides which are later shown to have been committed by the parents.

The country it was in seems irrelevant to me, although the fact it was in a foreign country clearly has helped them. It gave them an opportunity to flee to their home country (something they couldn’t have done had the crime been committed in the UK) and to prevent a reconstruction from taking place which would have further highlited the untruths in their accounts.

It also presented them with an opportunity to create, fuel or feed racist and xenophobic discreditation of a foreign police force. “Sardine munchers” wasn’t it?

The contradictions in their statements, their response to the dogs’ evidence and the myriad of other cock ups they have committed, all picked up on this and other forums, show they aren't "criminally fiendishly clever" at all.

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:
Can you tell me why, and also whether or not you accept that if minute traces of Madeleine's DNA was indeed included that it could easily have arrived there by purely innocent means, ie from other items that she had come into contact with? For example if you bought a new car and then filled your boot with a selection of your kids' toys and clothes or other effects, that some of their DNA might transfer to the boot, even if your kids had never set foot inside your new car?

Goncalo Amaral was very specific about what he found in the car.

What was found was bodily fluids, which as they have seen many times before, is consistent with a body that has been refrigerated (frozen) and then moved. Not a body that has been buried and subsequently mummified.

No, I do not accept that what was found in the car could have ever been transferred innocently.

As Amaral is not a forensic scientist perhaps you could point me to the source report for these conclusions..?

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:
without leaving a single piece of concrete evidence to put you in the frame?

We may have that concrete proof very soon Ringo, when the Met take a much closer look at the creche records.

If they find that someone was entering another childs name and they failed to mention it when being questioned. It will be time. It may also open up pandora's box as to what really happened that week.

Yes, and I'm willing to bet the contents of my house that they won't Stella. It's hardly credible that the McCanns would have been busting a gut to get the evidence reviewed if they knew that something as glaringly obvious as this was likely to come to light. Why were the PJ not able to uncover this already btw? What stopped them? They had months at it!

lj wrote:
You mean the same FSS that said they did not test hairs from the car because they were not blond enough??

Can I see the source for that? It's the first I've heard of it!

Ringo wrote:

lj wrote:
You mean the same FSS that said they did not test hairs from the car because they were not blond enough??

Can I see the source for that? It's the first I've heard of it!

Examination and results
Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

A total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting, at the least, that this was a hair from someone else.

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her.

Objects from the Renault Scenic - licence plate 59-DA-27
The following objects recovered from the scenic were subjected to examination:
1A, 1B, 1C, 1D,
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E,
3,
4A, 4B, 4C,
5A, 5B, 5C,
6A, 6B, 6C,
7A, 7B, 7C,
8A, 8B, 8C,
9 and
11 (2 objects).

There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.

Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.

Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.

Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.

The conclusions expressed in the present deposition are based on information available at the date of the examination. In the case that there are changes to that information, or additional information becomes available, it may be necessary to reconsider my interpretation and conclusions. That re-evaluation will be most effective when done immediately prior to any judgement.

A.L. Palmer

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm




Very scientific, the hairs weren't Madeleine's because they didn't look like the hair in the photo's??????????

Me wrote:
I don't have to provide evidence because, unlike you, i caveated my reply by saying " i would argue".

Argue away then!

You made a statement of fact so let's have your evidence that *most* people believe they are innocent then!

Actually I said that they had succeeded in "pulling the wool over most people's eyes" - most people would include the huge number of high profile supporters they have for a start - everyone from John Sentamu to JK Rowling, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who have bought Kate's book, the similar number who have contributed to the fund over the years, etc. If there was widespread disbelief of the McCanns' story they would not be given airtime and media space time and again to tell their story in a sympathetic light, not to mention being invited appear at government select committees, at police conventions, to work with CEOP and raise the profile of AMBER alerts etc.

I'd suggest from my own experiences though that if you look at many online articles and comments relating to the McCann’s the number of people who don't believe them far outweighs the number who do.

This is only a measure of the determination of the small number of people who are on a campaign to get the McCanns arrested for something they didn't do. And it is a small number - compare the number of signatures for Tony Bennett's various petitions with that of the McCanns for a vast discrepancy in numbers in favour of the McCanns. Interestingly, those same people have not been successful in shifting the rating of Kate's book on amazon, where the vast majority of reviews are 4 or 5 star! Kate herself confirms in her book that the vast majority of people that she meets and hears from on a daily basis are very supportive. In my circle of personal friends and family I don't know of one single person who believes the McCanns to be involved with something criminal.

Where have i said she was a ""dimwit"? That's your word and not mine.

No, it's not my word - it is the word of the blogger that we are discussing and which prompted my original comment that you responded to.

I have never said that because i don't think she is. What i have said and inferred is that the web of lies and untruths her and her husband have spun frequently keep catching them out.

Like how?

They have chosen to stay in the public eye to proclaim their innocence and validate their theory. The case is shelved and there is insufficient evidence to charge them with at this stage so they are not taking any risks in "continuously drawing attention to themselves and their crime, made countless TV appearances, written a best-selling book, appeared on every chat show going", are they?

There is no risk to them in doing any of this, in fact there are only upsides and it is entirely logical that, given there is not enough evidence to prosecute them and the case has been shelved, they should continue pursuing their "wider agenda" which is:

1) Convince people they are innocent
2) Reinforce their version of events in the minds of the public
3) To continue asking for people to donate to a limited company "fund"
3) To use that money to Carter Ruck any dissenters
5) And to pay off that pesky mortgage and keep a few of the "boys" in jobs.

You forgot the main thing they have been campaigning for and that is a thorough review of all the evidence and which is now happening - by Scotland yard. And - do you have any evidence that the McCanns are using the fund to pay off their mortgage apart from the one or two payments back in the Summer of 2007?

So when you look at what risks they have taken in doing this and compare and contrast that with the rewards and upsides you don't have to be a criminal mastermind to work out that their actions are a non brainer. All they’re doing is trying to make (for their ends) the best of the situation they are in.

Where is your evidence of the rewards that the McCanns are reaping?

Where is that celebrity support now? Where's JK Rowling et al? I've not seen their support much recently. Have you? Religious leaders you say? You mean like Father Jose Manuel Pacheco, yes he's been fully behind them hasn't he?

I was referring to John Sentamu actually who continues to support them. I believe JK Rowling offered advice to Kate when she was writing her book. Do you have any evidence that celebrities that once supported them are now shunning them, having decided that they are guilty after all?

And how many of these celebrities, religious people and journalists have actually read the files? Why should the support of these people, who we don't know whether they've actually read the details, be important or proof positive of innocence?

Err...because we were talking about whether or not the McCanns were master criminals who had successfully managed to pull the wool over most people's eyes!

It seems to me that as a result of their media and public relations work and team they have created a bandwagon that those who haven't read the details can attach themselves to.

I have read the files, as have many other people, not to mention the police themselves, who have all drawn the same inescapable conclusion - no evidence whatsoever of any wrong-doing by Kate and Gerry!

For example I've never heard a celebrity or religious leader's view on the veracity of Jane Tanner's sighting in relation to her subsequent undercover operation in the van, and the damage it did to her credibility, have you? Why do you think that is?

Why on earth would they? Do you expect celebrities that have supported the McCanns to suddenly start making public pronoincements on Jane Tanner's statement?! Please don't be ridiculous!

They have done well to hide what they could so far but "criminally fiendishly clever", no i don't think it is.

Something happened in that apartment, they then moved the body, cleaned the scene (they worked in hospitals so will know all about cleaning, won't they)and came up with a sighting of someone taking her, which appears to be the standard parent response in unsolved child homicides which are later shown to have been committed by the parents.

The country it was in seems irrelevant to me, although the fact it was in a foreign country clearly has helped them. It gave them an opportunity to flee to their home country (something they couldn’t have done had the crime been committed in the UK) and to prevent a reconstruction from taking place which would have further highlited the untruths in their accounts.

No evidence whatsoever - that was the final summing up of the Portuguese authorities - that's pretty damned clever if you ask me!

It also presented them with an opportunity to create, fuel or feed racist and xenophobic discreditation of a foreign police force. “Sardine munchers” wasn’t it?

Can you supply the quote where Kate and Gerry called the PJ "sardine munchers"? Although this point is completely irrelelvant to what we were discussing.

The contradictions in their statements, their response to the dogs’ evidence and the myriad of other cock ups they have committed, all picked up on this and other forums, show they aren't "criminally fiendishly clever" at all.

The simple fact is, which I have to keep repeating is that the McCanns are free people, free to do as they want, and there was no evidence that they have committed any crime. Now, it is 4 years since you believe they did the dastardly deed and we are as far away as it is possible to get from the McCanns ever being arrested and charged with the disappearance of their child. If they are indeed guilty then you would have to concede that they are a pretty crafty, clever pair - or conversely that the police and judiciary system are the dimwits.

candyfloss wrote:

Ringo wrote:

lj wrote:
You mean the same FSS that said they did not test hairs from the car because they were not blond enough??

Can I see the source for that? It's the first I've heard of it!

Examination and results
Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

A total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting, at the least, that this was a hair from someone else.

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her.

Objects from the Renault Scenic - licence plate 59-DA-27
The following objects recovered from the scenic were subjected to examination:
1A, 1B, 1C, 1D,
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E,
3,
4A, 4B, 4C,
5A, 5B, 5C,
6A, 6B, 6C,
7A, 7B, 7C,
8A, 8B, 8C,
9 and
11 (2 objects).

There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.

Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.

Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.

Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.

The conclusions expressed in the present deposition are based on information available at the date of the examination. In the case that there are changes to that information, or additional information becomes available, it may be necessary to reconsider my interpretation and conclusions. That re-evaluation will be most effective when done immediately prior to any judgement.

A.L. Palmer

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm




Very scientific, the hairs weren't Madeleine's because they didn't look like the hair in the photo's??????????

The report does not say that the hairs were not blonde enough but that they were not blonde - there is a difference! If you know that your subject is a blonde haired child and you are presented with a bunch of dark hair strands then I think it is safe to assume they did not come from that child don't you?

Ringo wrote:

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:
Can you tell me why, and also whether or not you accept that if minute traces of Madeleine's DNA was indeed included that it could easily have arrived there by purely innocent means, ie from other items that she had come into contact with? For example if you bought a new car and then filled your boot with a selection of your kids' toys and clothes or other effects, that some of their DNA might transfer to the boot, even if your kids had never set foot inside your new car?

Goncalo Amaral was very specific about what he found in the car.

What was found was bodily fluids, which as they have seen many times before, is consistent with a body that has been refrigerated (frozen) and then moved. Not a body that has been buried and subsequently mummified.

No, I do not accept that what was found in the car could have ever been transferred innocently.

As Amaral is not a forensic scientist perhaps you could point me to the source report for these conclusions..?

Goncalo Amaral is the most senior detective you have, with over 30 years worth of experience in witnessing crime scenes. Fluid that has dried up, obviously looks a certain way to someone who has seen it many times before.

If you are not happy with his conclusions, then I suggest you take it up with him direct.

Ringo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Ringo wrote:

lj wrote:
You mean the same FSS that said they did not test hairs from the car because they were not blond enough??

Can I see the source for that? It's the first I've heard of it!

Examination and results
Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

A total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting, at the least, that this was a hair from someone else.

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her.

Objects from the Renault Scenic - licence plate 59-DA-27
The following objects recovered from the scenic were subjected to examination:
1A, 1B, 1C, 1D,
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E,
3,
4A, 4B, 4C,
5A, 5B, 5C,
6A, 6B, 6C,
7A, 7B, 7C,
8A, 8B, 8C,
9 and
11 (2 objects).

There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.

Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.

Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.

Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.

The conclusions expressed in the present deposition are based on information available at the date of the examination. In the case that there are changes to that information, or additional information becomes available, it may be necessary to reconsider my interpretation and conclusions. That re-evaluation will be most effective when done immediately prior to any judgement.

A.L. Palmer

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm




Very scientific, the hairs weren't Madeleine's because they didn't look like the hair in the photo's??????????

The report does not say that the hairs were not blonde enough but that they were not blonde - there is a difference! If you know that your subject is a blonde haired child and you are presented with a bunch of dark hair strands then I think it is safe to assume they did not come from that child don't you?

Madeleine was not blonde.