The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™️ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Well....

Post by tigger on 16.09.11 15:55

whatsupdoc wrote:
jd wrote:
tigger wrote:
According to Kate's mother, neither of them were very religious at all.

When the police first arrived, what on earth was that muslim type prayer on the bed that they both performed about? Was it a religious or kind of a Masonary gesture?

I think Gerry did the distress sign outside and inside 5A. It's the last one on...

http://www.ephesians5-11.org/handshakes.htm

I'm rather suspicious of that. Kate says on the phone to her family 'Gerry is roaring like a bull'.
That is pretty weird for a start, 'Gerry is frantic, he looking everywhere for her, shouting her name, but no, roaring like a bull'. Get me a divorce, quick.
It was quite a defined performance, according to the GNR. He went down on his knees, hit the ground twice with both hands and roared twice.
That doesn't at all seem like an expression of panic or grief to me, it looks like a ritual.
Now, according to the GNR, somewhat to their surprise, this was repeated by the parents in the bedroom. They knelt down side by side, and made noises as if they were crying. This has been criticised by others in that the GNR police didn't understand the parents' grief. I disagree.
IMO the ritual wasn't recognised by the GNR and therefore Gerry and Kate repeated it in the bedroom, to make it look like an expression of grief.
I think it might have been a masonic thing or something.
I've always felt that if Gerry was made a member of a neighbourhood watch, he'd turn up in combat gear. Over-egging the pudding seems to be his speciality.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Perhaps, like you Stella!

Post by tigger on 16.09.11 16:03

Stella wrote:I do not believe for one minute that an overdose was involved in Madeleine's death. What was found behind the sofa on the floor, on the back of the sofa, on the blue curtain, on the white curtain and on the walls, does not equate to an overdose. In my opinion, that is a red herring.
'All the children were left alone'. Where is the proof of this. Someone missing every night provides a suitable baby sitter.
'A child was heard crying'. One child heard crying does not prove that all the children were left alone. All it suggests is, that one child may have been left in their cot to cry until they stop. A practice many mothers at one time or another have tried out.

Actually, I have to come clean. I think she died early and she died 'by accident on purpose' . Re the crying: it may not have been Madeleine, it could be the twins and the wall between the apartment G5 and I think Oldfield and Rachel was very thin? So could Mrs. Fenn have heard noise from next door? you see, the 1st May worries me, because I think she was already dead.
Totally agree with the forensic evidence.
The only other wild theory I can come up with is that it was a recording of a child crying, to make the neighbours think she was alive on that date.
The crying did stop as soon as Mrs. Fenn heard the patio doors slide, normally children cry on until you hug them. Even then, they don't stop immediately.
The posts of russiandoll are interesting re the crying episode. Why are these people parents at all?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Guest on 16.09.11 16:43

There were two reports from the BBC in September 2007 ( one by Jane Hill) which were never repeated. The reports were on television at the time KMc was being questioned. These stated that forensic reports had suggested that cerebral fluids had been detected which would indicate a broken larynx or fractured skull.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Invinoveritas on 16.09.11 16:50

Tigger,

if she died on 01.05.2007, then that could explain the flurry of mobile calls from Kate (6 in all after 22.16), wasn´t this the evening when Gerry invited the quiz mistress to the table? As far as I can see in the records, the calls weren´t answered, then we have Mrs.Fenn who I think lived in a flat higher in the complex saying she thought she heard someone calling Daddy,Daddy, no disrespect intended but could that have been Maddy, Maddy? Then she says that the crying stopped immediately after the patiodoors opened, Gerry coming back? Then on the 2nd Gerry had 16 attempted or successfull mobile connections and then on the 3rd 1 connection during the day and 4 after 23.00p.m.

If the child died through "misadventure" on the 1st then they would have had time to wash the walls down, clean up the curtains, the bed linen to? and generally organise a strategy, also the flat was last cleaned on the 2nd which could explain a lack of DNA, and last but not least: did Kate go off in a huff on the 1st when Gerry did his invitation?
avatar
Invinoveritas

Posts : 374
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-13
Location : Nowereland

Back to top Go down

Invinoveritas

Post by tigger on 16.09.11 17:02

Invinoveritas wrote:Tigger,

if she died on 01.05.2007, then that could explain the flurry of mobile calls from Kate (6 in all after 22.16), wasn´t this the evening when Gerry invited the quiz mistress to the table? As far as I can see in the records, the calls weren´t answered, then we have Mrs.Fenn who I think lived in a flat higher in the complex saying she thought she heard someone calling Daddy,Daddy, no disrespect intended but could that have been Maddy, Maddy? Then she says that the crying stopped immediately after the patiodoors opened, Gerry coming back? Then on the 2nd Gerry had 16 attempted or successfull mobile connections and then on the 3rd 1 connection during the day and 4 after 23.00p.m.

If the child died through "misadventure" on the 1st then they would have had time to wash the walls down, clean up the curtains, the bed linen to? and generally organise a strategy, also the flat was last cleaned on the 2nd which could explain a lack of DNA, and last but not least: did Kate go off in a huff on the 1st when Gerry did his invitation?


I'm sorry, I've heard this theory of it not being Maddie crying but Kate crying Maddie, Maddie. But I don't believe it! Nothing Kate has done since leads me to believe she has much of a conscience. For her to be crying for over an hour - and really children's crying is quite distinctive, no, I really do not believe that scenario. Especially since I also favour the premeditation. Or at least the 'Letting it happen by accident on purpose'.
Wasn't there a lot of phone activity (I think quite a lot of sms) on the 30th?
I think Murat flying back on the night of th 30th? or the 1st is key to the date of Maddie's demise. He was the one who could help. Not personally, I think but he knew people and places.
IMO the body was well away from the flat before the evening of the 2nd. The third was just smoke and mirrors.
If the body wasn't moved within hours of her death, then we also have to take rigor mortis in consideration, this makes it difficult to move a body for up to 24 hours. We also need some appreciable time for the body to have rested (cadaver scent) in two locations in the flat and in the flowerbed (to be picket up by car no doubt).

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Invinoveritas on 16.09.11 17:14

tigger, yes to calpol but not as premedication but to make her somnolent, as to the 2nd or 3rd for body removal, I favour the third, wasn´t there a black holdall or tennis bag that went missing? If the body was removed and disposed of on the third then in fact neither Kate nor Gerry would be lying, i.e. they´ve taken her! she´s gone! (from Kate) then Gerry,: we don´t know where she is etc., which in their eyes strengthens their libel case against Goncarlo.

Don´t forget, she was only 90 something cms. tall, could easily fit into a holdall
avatar
Invinoveritas

Posts : 374
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-13
Location : Nowereland

Back to top Go down

there is no proof

Post by tigger on 16.09.11 17:47

Invinoveritas wrote:tigger, yes to calpol but not as premedication but to make her somnolent, as to the 2nd or 3rd for body removal, I favour the third, wasn´t there a black holdall or tennis bag that went missing? If the body was removed and disposed of on the third then in fact neither Kate nor Gerry would be lying, i.e. they´ve taken her! she´s gone! (from Kate) then Gerry,: we don´t know where she is etc., which in their eyes strengthens their libel case against Goncarlo.

Don´t forget, she was only 90 something cms. tall, could easily fit into a holdall

The tennis bag was in place in the wardrobe on the 3rd, photographed by the GNR. It only disappeared later.
As to her being 90 cm tall, the girl in the tennis photo is at least 114 cm tall. 90 cm is completely off the chart for a nearly 4 year old. But then she didn't look like her photograph either. The Donegal photos also show a much taller girl, so why give all this wrong information?
There were two recorded remarks by Kate: 'They've taken her' and 'We've let her down', the last possibly for the benefit of the T7 who may have believed Maddie was ill and 'moved on'. As Kate said on one occasion: 'She moved on you know, she just moved on'.

Removing the body on the third seems rather risky. I do believe the body was 'collected' by somebody. Not in the bag, because that figured later, perhaps with the second time it was moved. So yes, shouting 'they've taken her' might then be easier.
But it is still a weird reaction. 'She's gone, Maddie's gone, I can't find her, Madeleine, Madeleine...!' That kind of rings true to me.
At no time did Kate go round the OC calling her name. She never looked at all.
There are videos of her admitting this and another early video asking her when they last saw Maddie. They just don't answer but burble on about how she was a happy little girl.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by *~Melody~* on 16.09.11 17:54

tigger wrote:At no time did Kate go round the OC calling her name. She never looked at all.
There are videos of her admitting this and another early video asking her when they last saw Maddie. They just don't answer but burble on about how she was a happy little girl.

That's the Jane Hill video your referring to here and Kate had to pause for a few seconds before answering Jane who asked why didn't she search - it was almost like Kate was trying to think which of their pre-rehearsed mantras would be the best answer.
avatar
*~Melody~*

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-01-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Invinoveritas on 16.09.11 18:35

O.K. thanks for clarifying me on the holdall, I´d overseen that but even so if the child had an accident then she wouldn´t be stretched out, possibly curled up, I can´t remember after how many hours rigor mortis sets in and how long it lasts but after a length of time the body starts to decay and the rigor is gone, the fluids seep out of the corpse, Putting the body on ice slows the process.

____________________
"A voyage of discovery is not just seeing new sights - it is seeing familiar sights with new eyes." Proust
avatar
Invinoveritas

Posts : 374
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-13
Location : Nowereland

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Guest on 16.09.11 18:38

whatsupdoc wrote: Human cloning has been done successfully in various countries such as America, Netherlands and Korea. Whether legal or not has varied in the Netherlands. Cloned animals have been shown to have much shorter lives.

I think in the case of Dolly it led to a shorter life because the cell nucleus that they used was already 7 years old.

Stella wrote:I do not believe for one minute that an overdose was involved in Madeleine's death.

Not if they were all tucked up & safely cared for by an adult.

So why did Gerry have to get Madeleine's DNA sample from home?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Angelique on 16.09.11 21:51

Molly

Don't the Forensic people need a control. The PJ had the DNA samples from the apartment but they needed to match it with something, I think.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2010-10-19

Back to top Go down

Still puzzles me

Post by tigger on 17.09.11 6:49

Angelique wrote:Molly

Don't the Forensic people need a control. The PJ had the DNA samples from the apartment but they needed to match it with something, I think.

Why was there no DNA of Maddie in the flat? The shared towels/toothbrushes/hairbrushes story baffles me.
Because they couldn't hope to avoid the issue permanently, or perhaps they thought they'd be able to avoid this issue. That things could be 'arranged'.

If she died on the 28th or 29th, there were several days of washing and cleaning and obviously throwing out her toothbrush, washing the rest. Just possible, but still why? Can anyone help?

Because there was her DNA on her pillow in Rothley but nothing on her bed in PdL. How so?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Guest on 17.09.11 8:44

Molly wrote:
So why did Gerry have to get Madeleine's DNA sample from home?
Angelique is absolutely right, the PJ needed a control sample, which could only have been obtained from their home.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Guest on 17.09.11 9:01

tigger wrote:
Angelique wrote:Molly
Don't the Forensic people need a control. The PJ had the DNA samples from the apartment but they needed to match it with something, I think.
Why was there no DNA of Maddie in the flat?
We only have the McCann's word and that of the rest of the 'pact', that these are the apartments they were staying in that week. But as we know from Fiona's statement, they were the only ones to book a 2 bed and all the rest still got one. But where were these apartments? Both the Oldfields and Tanner have 1 bedrooms on their bookings, so where did they really stay?. The McCann's have a 2 bed on their booking, which does not tally with what Fiona first said and if they all wanted to be close together, perhaps they all ended up somewhere else !!!
The shared towels/toothbrushes/hairbrushes story baffles me.
This is nothing more than being uncooperative.
Because they couldn't hope to avoid the issue permanently, or perhaps they thought they'd be able to avoid this issue. That things could be 'arranged'.
It certainly gave them more time.
If she died on the 28th or 29th, there were several days of washing and cleaning and obviously throwing out her toothbrush, washing the rest. Just possible, but still why? Can anyone help?
If they have nothing to work with, how can they prove death even occurred?
Because there was her DNA on her pillow in Rothley but nothing on her bed in PdL. How so?
Perhaps if you have no evidence of life, how can you then have evidence of death??
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Evidence

Post by tigger on 17.09.11 9:39

In archaeology the dictum is:

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
thanks

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by jd on 17.09.11 9:50

tigger wrote:
Angelique wrote:Molly

Don't the Forensic people need a control. The PJ had the DNA samples from the apartment but they needed to match it with something, I think.

Why was there no DNA of Maddie in the flat? The shared towels/toothbrushes/hairbrushes story baffles me.
Because they couldn't hope to avoid the issue permanently, or perhaps they thought they'd be able to avoid this issue. That things could be 'arranged'.

If she died on the 28th or 29th, there were several days of washing and cleaning and obviously throwing out her toothbrush, washing the rest. Just possible, but still why? Can anyone help?

Because there was her DNA on her pillow in Rothley but nothing on her bed in PdL. How so?

It is absurd that there is no DNA in the apartment 5A and GM had to go back to Rothley to get some.....and the 3 kids all share the same toothbrush

If you take their words away and just look at their actions.....They do nothing to find Maddie or help the police

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
avatar
jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 21
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Joss on 19.09.11 6:09

Wow, there is so much that doesn't make any sense in this case. Having followed the Casey Anthony case, it reminds me a bit of what i read here. But in that case the covering up done by the grandparents of the deceased 2.5 yr. old child. As soon as there was the smell of decomp. coming from Casey's car, and with 2.5 yr. old Caylee missing for 31 days, the grandparents, namely the grandmother washing items of clothing in the vehicle, the mama doll of Caylee's, the car etc. So much evidence lost through the tampering of the crime scene.

This has been such a bizarre case here in America. These people walk for perjuring themselves at the trial, the acquitted Casey Anthony protected by members of her defence team, she has had to go into hiding being the most hated woman in America! No Justice for Caylee.

Seems that these people are also after fame and fortune off the crime against a child. It really is despicable. Why aren't any of these people made to pay for their crimes against these poor defenseless children? If nothing else, they should be charged for child neglect, of which they are definitely guilty of, even if there is no other evidence against them for the harm that has come to these little ones. The parents need to be held responsible and accountable for their actions.
avatar
Joss

Posts : 1958
Reputation : 189
Join date : 2011-09-19

Back to top Go down

Using Occams' razor

Post by tigger on 19.09.11 8:42

1. They could count on unprecedented help and protection from the British Government and the press. They must have had connections almost on stand-by as it were to account for the unbelievably fast response.
2. The above powers managed to suppress evidence and the suspension of the police investigation.
3. Why then did Madeleine's body need to disappear?
a) so a Fund could be set up and a new lifestyle for the parents be achieved? A child that would never be found but always in the public eye?
b) to prevent a post mortem and findings thereof.

IMO since we have points 1 and 2 proposition a. is an unnecessary complication.

The results of a PM could more easily have been suppressed than all the work and tax payers money that has gone into maintaining the myth of abduction.

IMO the abduction is therefore entirely a construct of the McCanns and will finally come to light when the overpowering evidence against them can be acted upon.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Guest on 19.09.11 9:42

[quote="jd"][quote="tigger"]
Angelique wrote:Molly

Don't the Forensic people need a control. The PJ had the DNA samples from the apartment but they needed to match it with something, I think.

So if they found DNA in the apartment, Gerry had to go home and get a sample so they could match them up to see if it was hers.? Then how do we know that it was Madeleienes DNA he collected from home? If that is the case that he only got it for the police to have something to match the DNA they found I wouldnt trust that he brought Madeleines DNA back. If that is the reason it didnt match perfectly with what they found in the car, maybe because it was one of the twins DNA ? Or a mix ? since they match 15 out of 19 marks in the DNA ? I think I just confused myself ...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by jd on 19.09.11 11:02

There was no DNA in the apartment, hardly any photos from the holiday (all are highly suspicious of being photoshopped), contacting the press first before the police turned up, a limited company set up in record time to accept donations (though set up prior to April 28th), Lori Campbell (there was a Campbell who arrived on May 2nd), the press splashing their rags for years with the story.....Anyone suspicious that this simply was already planned as a money spinning story before they left for PDL?...was Maddie ever there? There are other big stories in the SUN/NOTW that have been set up purely because the people involved needed to make money to pay the mortgage and the NOTW helped with the setup with their interest of it being a seller. But in this story, the Tapas 9 have made so many mistakes and Murat is right 'this is the biggest c**kup in history"!!

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
avatar
jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 21
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by PeterMac on 19.09.11 12:11

Moa wrote:
Don't the Forensic people need a control. The PJ had the DNA samples from the apartment but they needed to match it with something, I think.

So if they found DNA in the apartment, Gerry had to go home and get a sample so they could match them up to see if it was hers.? Then how do we know that it was Madeleienes DNA he collected from home? If that is the case that he only got it for the police to have something to match the DNA they found I wouldnt trust that he brought Madeleines DNA back. If that is the reason it didnt match perfectly with what they found in the car, maybe because it was one of the twins DNA ? Or a mix ? since they match 15 out of 19 marks in the DNA ? I think I just confused myself ...
No, I don't think you have confused yourself at all.
It is quite extraordinary for anyone to have allowed Gerry to produce a sample of DNA himself. That is not how it works. Every sample has to be taken from a source which is verified, and under conditions where cross contamination is not possible, and so on. Sending a suspect back to the UK for a few hair from a brush or some spit from a pillow is madness. The Leicester Police forensic team should at least have been involved. None of that part of the story rings true at all.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 171
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

I thought LP was involved?

Post by tigger on 19.09.11 12:21

PeterMac wrote:
Moa wrote:
Don't the Forensic people need a control. The PJ had the DNA samples from the apartment but they needed to match it with something, I think.

So if they found DNA in the apartment, Gerry had to go home and get a sample so they could match them up to see if it was hers.? Then how do we know that it was Madeleienes DNA he collected from home? If that is the case that he only got it for the police to have something to match the DNA they found I wouldnt trust that he brought Madeleines DNA back. If that is the reason it didnt match perfectly with what they found in the car, maybe because it was one of the twins DNA ? Or a mix ? since they match 15 out of 19 marks in the DNA ? I think I just confused myself ...
No, I don't think you have confused yourself at all.
It is quite extraordinary for anyone to have allowed Gerry to produce a sample of DNA himself. That is not how it works. Every sample has to be taken from a source which is verified, and under conditions where cross contamination is not possible, and so on. Sending a suspect back to the UK for a few hair from a brush or some spit from a pillow is madness. The Leicester Police forensic team should at least have been involved. None of that part of the story rings true at all.

I must check, but I was under the impression that a LP officer was present when the samples were taken.
What I don't understand about the DNA results, is that the twins are said to be 100% offspring of G and K, but Maddie's DNA cannot possibly be confused with the DNA of the twins.
Wasn't it our lovely Phil who collected something from Rothley, possibly for their own DNA analysis? Sorry, I really have to go into this again.

And I didn't know that Murat had called it the biggest c...up in history.

That would figure, seeing it was devised by arrogant, IMO not very clever people. So that means what I've suspected for years, dozens of people tidying up after them. It seems to have become a growth industry.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Me on 19.09.11 12:33

PeterMac wrote:
Moa wrote:
Don't the Forensic people need a control. The PJ had the DNA samples from the apartment but they needed to match it with something, I think.

So if they found DNA in the apartment, Gerry had to go home and get a sample so they could match them up to see if it was hers.? Then how do we know that it was Madeleienes DNA he collected from home? If that is the case that he only got it for the police to have something to match the DNA they found I wouldnt trust that he brought Madeleines DNA back. If that is the reason it didnt match perfectly with what they found in the car, maybe because it was one of the twins DNA ? Or a mix ? since they match 15 out of 19 marks in the DNA ? I think I just confused myself ...
No, I don't think you have confused yourself at all.
It is quite extraordinary for anyone to have allowed Gerry to produce a sample of DNA himself. That is not how it works. Every sample has to be taken from a source which is verified, and under conditions where cross contamination is not possible, and so on. Sending a suspect back to the UK for a few hair from a brush or some spit from a pillow is madness. The Leicester Police forensic team should at least have been involved. None of that part of the story rings true at all.

I was going to post the exact same thing.

What I can’t understand is why when you suspect the parents, and you need control DNA, would you let one of the parents / suspects go back to the UK to get it on his own?

In relation to DNA (and a little off topic I know) am I right to assume that whilst the report did not say it was a definite match for Madeleine, is it also correct to assume that the DNA found and tested cannot be discounted as having come from her? In other words none of the markers were not a match for Maddie’s DNA?

So whilst the FSS couldn’t say with certainty it was from Maddie, they can say with certainty that none of the DNA found definitely did not come from Madeleine?

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Invinoveritas on 19.09.11 12:38

tigger, was the flat ever investigated for fingerprints (not the windows,shutters or patiodooors), surely it would have been nigh on impossible to whoosh all prints and DNA from surfaces, childrens´books, TV remote, glasses, cups etc.? sweaty fingers produce DNA do they not? and was anything found, or had the flat been clinicallly cleaned from professionals on that day, somebody could have seen the comings and goings, in daylight anyway). Now I am getting confused to.

____________________
"A voyage of discovery is not just seeing new sights - it is seeing familiar sights with new eyes." Proust
avatar
Invinoveritas

Posts : 374
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-13
Location : Nowereland

Back to top Go down

Re: Why would you need to cover up a child's death?

Post by Guest on 19.09.11 12:50

PeterMac wrote:
Moa wrote:
Don't the Forensic people need a control. The PJ had the DNA samples from the apartment but they needed to match it with something, I think.

So if they found DNA in the apartment, Gerry had to go home and get a sample so they could match them up to see if it was hers.? Then how do we know that it was Madeleienes DNA he collected from home? If that is the case that he only got it for the police to have something to match the DNA they found I wouldnt trust that he brought Madeleines DNA back. If that is the reason it didnt match perfectly with what they found in the car, maybe because it was one of the twins DNA ? Or a mix ? since they match 15 out of 19 marks in the DNA ? I think I just confused myself ...
No, I don't think you have confused yourself at all.
It is quite extraordinary for anyone to have allowed Gerry to produce a sample of DNA himself. That is not how it works. Every sample has to be taken from a source which is verified, and under conditions where cross contamination is not possible, and so on. Sending a suspect back to the UK for a few hair from a brush or some spit from a pillow is madness. The Leicester Police forensic team should at least have been involved. None of that part of the story rings true at all.

Well glad to hear Petermac:)
this case, and all its evidence and the whole picture is confusing. I find it so hard to believe that the parents are still walking free and on top of that getting a whole lot of money..
I also cant forget one of the first lines in her book saying : There are stories and opinions we cant share until Madelein is found....
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum