Why didn't you come last night...?

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Merrymo wrote:

tigger wrote:Just one word, Merrymo, close contact. Get that? Close, like hugging, that close. Close like holding a body against yours. That close.

She can't have had that many patients as she was only working a few days a week, statistically - 6 bodies would be way off the scale.

Quote from Martin Grimes Statement

Q. 'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''


A. Cross-contamination is immediate.

Dear God, Merrymo, I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
Have you even read what you've written? It in no way backs up your idea that Kate could've transferred cadaver odour to all her possessions that were signalled.
Read it again. How long does the cadaver itself have to be in contact?
Your idea that she rubs the stuff everywhere is gibberish.
But, if we give you your theory for one minute - ie contact with a cadaver - how did the Scenic key get so contaminated? She didn't have that with her when she 'certified deaths' did she?

Merrymo wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Merrymo wrote:

tigger wrote:Just one word, Merrymo, close contact. Get that? Close, like hugging, that close. Close like holding a body against yours. That close.

She can't have had that many patients as she was only working a few days a week, statistically - 6 bodies would be way off the scale.

Quote from Martin Grimes Statement

Q. 'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''


A. Cross-contamination is immediate.

Dear God, Merrymo, I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
Have you even read what you've written? It in no way backs up your idea that Kate could've transferred cadaver odour to all her possessions that were signalled.
Read it again. How long does the cadaver itself have to be in contact?
Your idea that she rubs the stuff everywhere is gibberish.
But, if we give you your theory for one minute - ie contact with a cadaver - how did the Scenic key get so contaminated? She didn't have that with her when she 'certified deaths' did she?

I was answering a particular point about the necessity to hug etc to be contaminated. You have now moved the goalposts and are erroneously saying I was talking about something else.

To clarify:

The cadaver scent is IMMEDIATELY passed to a person/object ouching it.

But it can also be transferred from one person to another or one object to another on IMMEDIATE contact too.

That is why it is not true to say that if someone has the death scent on them they must hve been in contact with a cadaver.

It's not rocket science.

Merrymo wrote:

So please give me a few examples of how she died accidentally which would show up at an autopsy as third party inflicted. I can't think of one -but of course that doesn't mean they don't exist.

tigger wrote:As Tinkerbell states that would mean Kate was only in contact with the floor behind the sofa, the flowerbed and near the wardrobe. Those were the only places she can have had contact with in the whole of the apartment.

Jesus weeps. Is it just getting beyond ridiculously silly this merryjolly's sense of contamination.

It would mean kate never went anywhere near her bedroom in her pants of ganga, never had to take off her pants of ganga, never had to go to toilet.
On top of that it leaves us wondering how kate packed her pants of ganga?
Did she wear it throughout from start to finish of holiday without taking it off?
Was it coincident that only the children's room was contaminated by her pants of ganga?

Geez, since it if was so easily and merryjolly transferable why was the whole luggage of clothes not contaminated nor anywhere else in the apartment except specified areas and objects.
We can just visualize Kate behind the sofa, on the floor near that area, under the window, and hiding in the flower bed.
But can we visualise how she contaminate the hired car door sills area where cadaver was signalled? or the well in the car boot?
Did she press herself against the sills or wipe the sills with her pants? Or was it cuddle cat she used?

By merrymo's definition even the police stations had to be contaminated since surely Kate wore her "favourite" pants there for the interrogations.


You didn't explain to Rainbow fairy how the cadaver scent got onto the Scenic key - months afterwards, surely as a doctor, Kate washes her hands from time to time?

Well, if you think about it Tigger, even washing hand is useless, since by Merrymo' s point, washing does not get rid of the scent as proven by the pants of ganga. Surely that pants must have been washed countless time yet the scent was SO embedded that it remains. Also Merrymo would have us believe the scent has a mind of its own that it can choose where and what to contaminate at random, since not everything kate was in contact with got contaminated.


Meanwhile you've lost your amusement value as far as I'm concerned. But one has to admire your belief in their innocence in the face of all the available evidence.

Merrymo wrote:

Kololi wrote:Russiandoll said,

"Of course I think normal people can make mistakes - but if as you say Maddie died as a result of an accident in the apartment - then there was nothing TO cover up as nothing had PURPOSELY been done to her. Therefore it defies all logic for them to decide on a cover up."

If, and its a massive "if", there was an accident in the apartment whilst they were at the Tapas Bar that caused Madeleine harm, it may be that the neglect issue scared them witless. Would they have been in fear of the consequences of this and how big could those consequences be? Would they have been at risk of being prosecuted for neglect under these circumstances? If so the consequences might well be far reaching enough so that they did feel a need to cover up.

If they were there and an accident that proved fatal happened then it seems less likely to me that they need an alibi or a cover up story as accidents do happen and they would have been on hand to give her the help that she required.

If she died as a result of an accident whilst they were at the Tapas bar then they earliest they could discover it was 9.00 when GM did his check. He was talking to Jes Wilkins at around 9.15 so that leaves 45 minutes for them to dispose of the body and come up with a cover story. sorry - but no chance IMHO

russiandoll wrote:

Merrymo wrote:

Kololi wrote:Russiandoll said,

"Of course I think normal people can make mistakes - but if as you say Maddie died as a result of an accident in the apartment - then there was nothing TO cover up as nothing had PURPOSELY been done to her. Therefore it defies all logic for them to decide on a cover up."

If, and its a massive "if", there was an accident in the apartment whilst they were at the Tapas Bar that caused Madeleine harm, it may be that the neglect issue scared them witless. Would they have been in fear of the consequences of this and how big could those consequences be? Would they have been at risk of being prosecuted for neglect under these circumstances? If so the consequences might well be far reaching enough so that they did feel a need to cover up.

If they were there and an accident that proved fatal happened then it seems less likely to me that they need an alibi or a cover up story as accidents do happen and they would have been on hand to give her the help that she required.

If she died as a result of an accident whilst they were at the Tapas bar then they earliest they could discover it was 9.00 when GM did his check. He was talking to Jes Wilkins at around 9.15 so that leaves 45 minutes for them to dispose of the body and come up with a cover story. sorry - but no chance IMHO

I HAVE ALREADY POSTED IN REPLY TO KOLOLI THAT I DID NOT MAKE THE ABOVE COMMENT NOR THE RESPONSE TO IT. I BELIEVE IT IS A COMMENT FROM MERRYMO WITH A RESPONSE FROM KOLOLI.
BTW... WHERE IS IT STATED THAT THE PERSON POSTING RE AN ACCIDENT THOUGHT THE DEATH WAS 3RD MAY.?

aiyoyo wrote:

Kololi wrote:Why would it be considered as manslaughter, Aiyoyo? I don't understand why you would think it necessarily could be.

kololi, even normal and nice people can make irretrievable mistake. Go figure!

And if it is a costly mistake that will affect life of others and plenty at stake, you would cover it up.

Gillyspot wrote:

russiandoll wrote:

Merrymo wrote:

Kololi wrote:Russiandoll said,

"Of course I think normal people can make mistakes - but if as you say Maddie died as a result of an accident in the apartment - then there was nothing TO cover up as nothing had PURPOSELY been done to her. Therefore it defies all logic for them to decide on a cover up."

If, and its a massive "if", there was an accident in the apartment whilst they were at the Tapas Bar that caused Madeleine harm, it may be that the neglect issue scared them witless. Would they have been in fear of the consequences of this and how big could those consequences be? Would they have been at risk of being prosecuted for neglect under these circumstances? If so the consequences might well be far reaching enough so that they did feel a need to cover up.

If they were there and an accident that proved fatal happened then it seems less likely to me that they need an alibi or a cover up story as accidents do happen and they would have been on hand to give her the help that she required.

If she died as a result of an accident whilst they were at the Tapas bar then they earliest they could discover it was 9.00 when GM did his check. He was talking to Jes Wilkins at around 9.15 so that leaves 45 minutes for them to dispose of the body and come up with a cover story. sorry - but no chance IMHO

I HAVE ALREADY POSTED IN REPLY TO KOLOLI THAT I DID NOT MAKE THE ABOVE COMMENT NOR THE RESPONSE TO IT. I BELIEVE IT IS A COMMENT FROM MERRYMO WITH A RESPONSE FROM KOLOLI.
BTW... WHERE IS IT STATED THAT THE PERSON POSTING RE AN ACCIDENT THOUGHT THE DEATH WAS 3RD MAY.?

This is a mixture or your post (in blue) and other poster's comments. .

aiyoyo wrote:

@ Merrymo
So please give me a few examples of how she died accidentally which would show up at an autopsy as third party inflicted. I can't think of one -but of course that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Oh come on Merrymo, engage your brain or your imagination at least!
Your imagination was running all over the place when you came up with the gang of professional criminals with key to 5A, surely you can come up with a few possible cause of accidental death not self inflicted by a three -year old that is fatal and that cannot stand up to scrutiny of autopsy - its not rocket science, unless you are in denial of course.

Well if you think it is impossible for a gang to abduct a child - then so be it. I am not the only person who has considered this to be a valid scenario.

I can come up with accidentally falling, tripping, swallowing drugs, even drowning in the bath at a stretch, but no - apart from that I can't think of any other kind of accidental death. You obviously can - so what are they?

Or you know one of the T9 (despite your claim of hand me down info from 2nd or 3rd hand or what not) and desperate to defend them at all costs, against all odds, and against all circumstantial evidence flying in your face. Your debate so far is not based on any shred of evidence except your say so!

Having read some of the theories on here - it would seem I am not the only one. At least I don't dispense with all common sense, logic and rational thought when I'm weighing up the evidence. There is not a shred of evidence that Maddie was an abused child. In fact the opposite would appear to be the case, and that she led a happy life, in fact some would say a privileged life compared to many children. If there was any doubt then the police would have asked to see her medical records from her doctor. This has never been requested.


What do you think of the blood speckles on the wall - well that photo is a police file specimen!

Who knows when they were made - several families had been in that apartment after the McCanns left, at least one of them cut himself shaving and was bleeding for around 45 mins. It could have been any number of people, including the cleaners/maintenance workers It was not identified as having Maddies DNA.


Well, are we going to be surprised you will come up with a cock and bull story to discount that without at least being objective and think how it could have been there? No one was reported to have an accident or died in 5A prior to the mccanns occupancy.


It cannot be proved that anyone died in that apartment or that a cadaver was ever there at any time. In order to claim that you have to disbelieve Martin Grime's professional opinion which states that there are various scenarios as to why a cadaver scent came to be there. I cannot think of any reason why he would lie.

i.e.

Quote from MG

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

tigger wrote:

Merrymo wrote:

tigger wrote:Just one word, Merrymo, close contact. Get that? Close, like hugging, that close. Close like holding a body against yours. That close.

She can't have had that many patients as she was only working a few days a week, statistically - 6 bodies would be way off the scale.

Quote from Martin Grimes Statement

Q. 'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''


A. Cross-contamination is immediate.

Yes, yes Merrymo, but that doesn't rule out the word 'close'. I.e. if I stand next to a corpse and write out the death certificate, I am not going to be contaminated. If I give it a big hug, I will be. Immediately, as Martin Grimes explained. To get the cadaver scent on my trousers, I'll have to have the corpse in close contact with my trousers. Not something that would happen in the morgue?

aiyoyo wrote:

@ Merrymo
T saw a man walking away from the apartment with a child at that time. A man fitting the same description was seen by the Smith family 45 mins later. . I believe it was the same man because the chances of 4 different people giving almost identical descriptions of a person carrying a child being 'purely coincidental' - are too phenomenal to consider..

WOW, if they were the same man, then he must have abducted two children, ether that ,or he managed to change their clothes. The child's clothes were different in Janey and Smithy sightings. Go read up that fact.

Have you never thought about the vastly different physical appearances people have from oneanother. Also the huge array of different clothing. Any of which could have applied to the man the Smiths saw if he was not the same man JT saw. In fact you would expect at least 2 or 3 of them to apply if it was a completely different man carrying a completely different child.

The Smiths man could have had black, white, brown, blond, grey or ginger hair. Have hair halfway down his back or be completely bald - be wearing a hat or be hatless. Both men had dark hair, of similar length and no hat.

The Smiths man could have been fat, thin, tall, short, be wearing jeans, shorts,or long trousers, and be anything in age from teenage to an OAP. But both sightings gave almost identical descriptions of the men on every count - even down to the same colour of the trousers

A different child could have been wearing socks, leggings, trousers, a coat, a dress, sandals, shoes, or even pyjamas. But both girls were described as wearing pyjamas and neither were covered with anything else.

And both just happened to be barefoot - which IMO is the least likeliest way a child would be taken out at 10.00 at night.

Both said the girl was being carried with her head to the left of the man's body.

Both said the man did not look like a tourist.

Considering how many differences are possible in so many areas of physical appearance and clothing - but which were not present, then I find it impossible to believe that these were two different men carrying two different children.


Besides they were both headed different direction and holding the child differently.
Unless the man dangling the child can walk at break neck speed and appear as apparition part of the way I cant see how he can hope to walk changing direction and in every direction with a child in the open knowing the Police must be on his tail since he left the window open as hallmark.

We have no way of knowing what he did or where he went inbetween the time he was seen yards from apartment 5A and 45 mins later by the Smiths.


And according to you he was supposed to be professional seasoned criminal.


I said that he could have been - not that he was. My! you do exaggerate Aiyoyo.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Merrymo wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Merrymo wrote:

tigger wrote:Just one word, Merrymo, close contact. Get that? Close, like hugging, that close. Close like holding a body against yours. That close.

She can't have had that many patients as she was only working a few days a week, statistically - 6 bodies would be way off the scale.

Quote from Martin Grimes Statement

Q. 'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''


A. Cross-contamination is immediate.

Dear God, Merrymo, I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
Have you even read what you've written? It in no way backs up your idea that Kate could've transferred cadaver odour to all her possessions that were signalled.
Read it again. How long does the cadaver itself have to be in contact?
Your idea that she rubs the stuff everywhere is gibberish.
But, if we give you your theory for one minute - ie contact with a cadaver - how did the Scenic key get so contaminated? She didn't have that with her when she 'certified deaths' did she?

I was answering a particular point about the necessity to hug etc to be contaminated. You have now moved the goalposts and are erroneously saying I was talking about something else.

To clarify:

The cadaver scent is IMMEDIATELY passed to a person/object ouching it.

But it can also be transferred from one person to another or one object to another on IMMEDIATE contact too.

That is why it is not true to say that if someone has the death scent on them they must hve been in contact with a cadaver.

It's not rocket science.

No, its not rocket science Merrymo. Its very straightforward, yet still you don't get it!
HOW have I moved goalposts? You are stating cadaver odour can be transferred from one inanimate object to another, I contend that it cannot.
Your quote from Martin Grime actually backed up MY argument, not yours!
The cadaver transfers scent to objects it has been in contact with. That object does NOT then contaminate something it then touches. I've been researching this since last night, and I haven't found anything that states otherwise. If you have, please post a link.
Otherwise, I'll stick with the premise that a cadaver has to be in DIRECT contact. Its not a second or third hand way of contamination.

Merrymo wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

@ Merrymo
So please give me a few examples of how she died accidentally which would show up at an autopsy as third party inflicted. I can't think of one -but of course that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Oh come on Merrymo, engage your brain or your imagination at least!
Your imagination was running all over the place when you came up with the gang of professional criminals with key to 5A, surely you can come up with a few possible cause of accidental death not self inflicted by a three -year old that is fatal and that cannot stand up to scrutiny of autopsy - its not rocket science, unless you are in denial of course.

Well if you think it is impossible for a gang to abduct a child - then so be it. I am not the only person who has considered this to be a valid scenario.

I can come up with accidentally falling, tripping, swallowing drugs, even drowning in the bath at a stretch, but no - apart from that I can't think of any other kind of accidental death. You obviously can - so what are they?

Or you know one of the T9 (despite your claim of hand me down info from 2nd or 3rd hand or what not) and desperate to defend them at all costs, against all odds, and against all circumstantial evidence flying in your face. Your debate so far is not based on any shred of evidence except your say so!

Having read some of the theories on here - it would seem I am not the only one. At least I don't dispense with all common sense, logic and rational thought when I'm weighing up the evidence. There is not a shred of evidence that Maddie was an abused child. In fact the opposite would appear to be the case, and that she led a happy life, in fact some would say a privileged life compared to many children. If there was any doubt then the police would have asked to see her medical records from her doctor. This has never been requested.


What do you think of the blood speckles on the wall - well that photo is a police file specimen!

Who knows when they were made - several families had been in that apartment after the McCanns left, at least one of them cut himself shaving and was bleeding for around 45 mins. It could have been any number of people, including the cleaners/maintenance workers It was not identified as having Maddies DNA.


Well, are we going to be surprised you will come up with a cock and bull story to discount that without at least being objective and think how it could have been there? No one was reported to have an accident or died in 5A prior to the mccanns occupancy.


It cannot be proved that anyone died in that apartment or that a cadaver was ever there at any time. In order to claim that you have to disbelieve Martin Grime's professional opinion which states that there are various scenarios as to why a cadaver scent came to be there. I cannot think of any reason why he would lie.

i.e.

Quote from MG

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

Merrymo wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

@ Merrymo
T saw a man walking away from the apartment with a child at that time. A man fitting the same description was seen by the Smith family 45 mins later. . I believe it was the same man because the chances of 4 different people giving almost identical descriptions of a person carrying a child being 'purely coincidental' - are too phenomenal to consider..

WOW, if they were the same man, then he must have abducted two children, ether that ,or he managed to change their clothes. The child's clothes were different in Janey and Smithy sightings. Go read up that fact.

Have you never thought about the vastly different physical appearances people have from oneanother. Also the huge array of different clothing. Any of which could have applied to the man the Smiths saw if he was not the same man JT saw. In fact you would expect at least 2 or 3 of them to apply if it was a completely different man carrying a completely different child.

The Smiths man could have had black, white, brown, blond, grey or ginger hair. Have hair halfway down his back or be completely bald - be wearing a hat or be hatless. Both men had dark hair, of similar length and no hat.

The Smiths man could have been fat, thin, tall, short, be wearing jeans, shorts,or long trousers, and be anything in age from teenage to an OAP. But both sightings gave almost identical descriptions of the men on every count - even down to the same colour of the trousers

A different child could have been wearing socks, leggings, trousers, a coat, a dress, sandals, shoes, or even pyjamas. But both girls were described as wearing pyjamas and neither were covered with anything else.

And both just happened to be barefoot - which IMO is the least likeliest way a child would be taken out at 10.00 at night.

Both said the girl was being carried with her head to the left of the man's body.

Both said the man did not look like a tourist.

Considering how many differences are possible in so many areas of physical appearance and clothing - but which were not present, then I find it impossible to believe that these were two different men carrying two different children.


Besides they were both headed different direction and holding the child differently.
Unless the man dangling the child can walk at break neck speed and appear as apparition part of the way I cant see how he can hope to walk changing direction and in every direction with a child in the open knowing the Police must be on his tail since he left the window open as hallmark.

We have no way of knowing what he did or where he went inbetween the time he was seen yards from apartment 5A and 45 mins later by the Smiths.


And according to you he was supposed to be professional seasoned criminal.


I said that he could have been - not that he was. My! you do exaggerate Aiyoyo.

Merrymo wrote:If there was any doubt then the police would have asked to see her medical records from her doctor. This has never been requested.