Could Maddie be in the garden of Casa Liliana?

I hope it's ok cath, I have put you post in here as well, as it is relevant to a theory..

cath2756 wrote:
I mentioned before that lime or quicklime changes the rate of decomposition and have since found out it also masks odours!!! I am not sure if it would mask it enough to confuse the dogs, which would go a long way to giving credence to Stephen Birch's claims

candyfloss wrote:I hope it's ok cath, I have put you post in here as well, as it is relevant to a theory..

cath2756 wrote:
I mentioned before that lime or quicklime changes the rate of decomposition and have since found out it also masks odours!!! I am not sure if it would mask it enough to confuse the dogs, which would go a long way to giving credence to Stephen Birch's claims

Yes, that's fine candyfloss

PeterMac wrote:The question is not whether it might have happened, or whether this theory fits with that theory, or whether the bag might have been moved, or anything else. . .
The question is a matter of hard primary evidential fact.
Is the body under the drive, or not ?

I would say, VERY UNLIKELY. The people/persons who might once, or not, have put a body in the hole will all certainly have had enough time now to dig the drive up, remove evidence and re-place the tarmac or whatever surface it was.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is all a non-starter.
The theory that it was placed there on the night of the third directly contradicts:
1. the police searches (they are not idiots who would miss some newly moved stones, vegetation, soil etc.) especially as they did not buy the 'abduction' story and suspected more or less straight away that it was some sort of foul play.
2. the dogs, who would, without a shred of doubt, have found cadaver odor if it had been present,
3. all logic.
With their resources, the MCs could have got the body far away.
Why would Murat agree to take the blame.
Why would Jane (under G. McC's fictionned time-line notice board, send the investigators straight towards Murat.
How could a hole be dug in Murat's mother's garden without her knowing and hearing. What about her own guard dogs.
How did the hole diggers (McC team or helpers) get into the garden, and where did they get the spades etc. from. Where did they put the spades afterwards, with traces of digging and their own scents on the tools.
How hard was the soil and stone to break into for a hole deep enough etc. without making some noise.
Why wait till dark to go back into the garden (past the guard dogs, Murat and or his mum) to bury a body when it could be easily carried all around PdL for a whole week in a big black sports bag without anyone turning a hair.

I am sorry but I find this all too silly. How did Mr. Birch get the idea that 'said garden works' had been carried out. How did he manage to break in with his machine and spend enough time to do his ground-breaking research without disturbing the guard dogs, or terrifying Mrs. Murat, had she discovered invaders in her garden.

This is all so loosely hung together, the promised information from Mr. Birch keeps not happening, and all the time the warning of a search has been given out, the perps will have cleared the area.

Even if the body were found, how would this help to identify who had done what to, or for, whom and why.

There are far more important lines of enquiry to follow and hopefully one day soon, one of the birds will sing.

The McCs are losing favour, big style, with the public.
Their associating themselves with the April Jones case, and riding once again off the back of someone else's tragedy (or is it a tragedy, especially after this now 'pinkified' event with its tarnishing fund, publicity drive, adverse public comment, which begins to make it all look less and less wholesome) is backfiring on them.
Soon it will not be beneficial to remain part of the 'pact of secrecy'.

Hi
Tigger, you mentioned in a post:

" The evidence in the barn after the 10th June, the clothes found in a bag near the airport?"

I have never come across either of these things, I wonder if you could direct me towards where it is discussed/evidence etc. Thanks....learning new stuff every day here!

I certainly wish that Mr Birch would give more information out as to why he arrived at the conclusions he did - which led to his trespass and use of equipment in the Murat garden.

And if the Murats have absolutely ruled out their permission to dig - it will take a complete change of heart on the part of the Portuguese police to change that.

Only a dig - nothing more or less - can conclusively resolve this issue.

Springers are FAB wrote:Hi
Tigger, you mentioned in a post:

" The evidence in the barn after the 10th June, the clothes found in a bag near the airport?"

I have never come across either of these things, I wonder if you could direct me towards where it is discussed/evidence etc. Thanks....learning new stuff every day here!

Some info here.....

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

Here is article about the bag found nr airport, containing clothes, pencile case and shower curtain....

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

From the found bag article..

It is understood the contents, including a child's T-shirt, a pencil case, a shower curtain, adult jeans and a blue fleece, were handed to the Policia Judiciaria who passed it on to the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham.

After 10 days of analysis, experts there are said to have found traces of hair and skin with a partial DNA match to Madeleine on the adult clothes. But the link is thought to be only partial - around three on a scale of one to eight.

Although they recognise that the link is at best partial, the McCanns were described as "encouraged" by the development which would suggest she could still be alive and also backs up their view that Madeleine was abducted



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

PeterMac wrote:The question is not whether it might have happened, or whether this theory fits with that theory, or whether the bag might have been moved, or anything else. . .
The question is a matter of hard primary evidential fact.
Is the body under the drive, or not ?

Nail on the head.
Precisely, is the body under the drive, or not?
All SB said was FIVE experts confirmed something is buried there, but what is that something?
Did those same experts confirm it could not be family pet dog?
Was the scan-radar able to signal confirmation it was a two-legged and not four-legged underneath?
I thinkI have answered my own question.

candyfloss wrote:From the found bag article..

It is understood the contents, including a child's T-shirt, a pencil case, a shower curtain, adult jeans and a blue fleece, were handed to the Policia Judiciaria who passed it on to the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham.

After 10 days of analysis, experts there are said to have found traces of hair and skin with a partial DNA match to Madeleine on the adult clothes. But the link is thought to be only partial - around three on a scale of one to eight.

Although they recognise that the link is at best partial, the McCanns were described as "encouraged" by the development which would suggest she could still be alive and also backs up their view that Madeleine was abducted



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

Thanks for the links Candyfloss...interesting reading!!

I'm not sure how the bag of clothes would lead anyone to think it suggests Madeleine was/is alive though??? Surely all it shows is that a bag was dumped in a layby that MIGHT have some connection to her. It doesn't have any implication one way or the other as to whether she was abducted or not...unless that bag had been deliberately put there, knowing it would be found, in order to 'somehow' reinforce the abduction story. How you work that one out I have no idea, unless i'm being particularly dense?? Very strange.

Springers are FAB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:From the found bag article..

It is understood the contents, including a child's T-shirt, a pencil case, a shower curtain, adult jeans and a blue fleece, were handed to the Policia Judiciaria who passed it on to the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham.

After 10 days of analysis, experts there are said to have found traces of hair and skin with a partial DNA match to Madeleine on the adult clothes. But the link is thought to be only partial - around three on a scale of one to eight.

Although they recognise that the link is at best partial, the McCanns were described as "encouraged" by the development which would suggest she could still be alive and also backs up their view that Madeleine was abducted



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

Thanks for the links Candyfloss...interesting reading!!

I'm not sure how the bag of clothes would lead anyone to think it suggests Madeleine was/is alive though??? Surely all it shows is that a bag was dumped in a layby that MIGHT have some connection to her. It doesn't have any implication one way or the other as to whether she was abducted or not...unless that bag had been deliberately put there, knowing it would be found, in order to 'somehow' reinforce the abduction story. How you work that one out I have no idea, unless i'm being particularly dense?? Very strange.

Springersarefab, my opinion, for what it is worth, is that the McCanns believe what they want to believe when it suits them. This was called a "partial" dna match and they were "encouraged". They are happy to say partial matches are rubbish in other instances, like the boot for example.

So you are right, most normal people would die themselves at the thought of a cadaver dog indicating in the apartment, most normal people would not consider belongings dumped at the side of the road with a partial dna match as fantastic news but may actually fear the worst. Most normal people might in fact appeal on television for the person who dumped said bag to come forward so that it could be ruled out of the police investigation.

Am I mistaken, but wasn't there talk in the very very early days about a missing or damaged shower curtain?

Nina wrote:Am I mistaken, but wasn't there talk in the very very early days about a missing or damaged shower curtain?

There was - iirc and it seemed to be connected to JT, but the PJ have kept a fair number of files back. When the news of the found clothes, pencil case etc. was released, (november or december 07 I think -it's in the timelines) it's interesting that shortly after that JT and ROB had let it be known that they wanted to change their statements. This all seems to centre around the Rothley meeting. Soon after that, JT and ROB suddenly had a baby monitor.
(Which imo they had all along but weren't allowed to mention). Imo deals were struck.
We've discussed the clothing found in the bag, jeans and a fleece top. Guess who was without either of these garments - JT. She may be owed big time imo.

and in one of the RI's there was a big deal imo made of KM having to be loaned a fleece as it was cold.

aquila wrote:and in one of the RI's there was a big deal imo made of KM having to be loaned a fleece as it was cold.

I don't know about that, but JT went into some detail to explain she borrowed this large fleece from ROB and not having any jeans, as she didn't take jeans on holiday. Right.

tigger wrote:

aquila wrote:and in one of the RI's there was a big deal imo made of KM having to be loaned a fleece as it was cold.

I don't know about that, but JT went into some detail to explain she borrowed this large fleece from ROB and not having any jeans, as she didn't take jeans on holiday. Right.

IIRC it was DW's RI about the fleece. I'll have to look it up (my heart sighs to go through those dreadful interviews again).

Sounds like the bag was planted.

If this so called 'abductor' exisits, which imo they do not, then why after planning a well timed abduction would they then go leave a piece of potential evidence at the side of a road? If there is an 'abductor' they were so stealth at abducting that they did not even leave a trace of any abduction, and the bag dumping is not the behaviour of the same supposed stealth abductor.

IMO there was no abductor, and the bag was planted to reinforce the abduction theory.

Ladies & Gentleman, within 2 days Portuguese Press and myself will release information about the Policia Judiaria, never before released in public.

I will post as soon as it is send to me in writing.

Regards

Stephen D. Birch

aquila wrote:

tigger wrote:

aquila wrote:and in one of the RI's there was a big deal imo made of KM having to be loaned a fleece as it was cold.

I don't know about that, but JT went into some detail to explain she borrowed this large fleece from ROB and not having any jeans, as she didn't take jeans on holiday. Right.

IIRC it was DW's RI about the fleece. I'll have to look it up (my heart sighs to go through those dreadful interviews again).

Here you are: (honestly easy with Google)
Rog interview JT:
4078 “But just do the best you can”.
Reply “Yeah. Erm, I’m just trying to, well I’ve walked out of the, walked out of the, erm, the Tap, you know, walked sort of into the reception of the Tapas Bar and obviously walked up the road. I remember I was wearing, because it was cold, I’d got Russell’s big, I’d borrowed one of his, erm, fleeces, so I’d got a big sort of fleece, it probably came down to about here, but then I’d got flip-flops on and cropped trousers, because I’d only got, I didn’t take jeans, I know I didn’t take jeans on holiday, and then. Oh I’m sidetracking a bit, but that’s why I knew one of the pictures in the paper wasn’t from the holiday, because I hadn’t got jeans on the holiday with me, so. Erm, yeah, and I’d got cropped trousers on and just flip-flops, ...unquote

Methinks the lady does protest to much, they weren't asking about jeans - he didn't ask what she was wearing, but we got it in some detail.
The PJ aren't letting on, the jeans were said to be stained.
@ sonic I certainly don't think it was a cunning plan to convince the PJ and the world there was an abduction. The real problem is that there simply was no cunning plan at all. Too many players.

Woofer wrote:

sami wrote:Aiyoyo, I tend to agree with the theory that it was not a body transported in the boot of the car. For this to happen some +/- 25 days later just feels wrong to me, even for this story. My opinion is that it is likely the blue bag and other bits that were transported for disposal. The bag became significant and important, the PJ were questioning its existance.

When I first read SB's story, my reaction was what a great idea. Bury the body in the one place that had been thoroughly searched and most unlikely ever to be searched again. A good reason for McCann's arrogance, and he has an air of arrogance about him when it comes to talking about finding Madeleine's body. But then I read his opinion on the timings and that discounted that theory. However my biggest doubt of all is the dogs, they did not alert. Why not ?

So either the timings are wrong or the dogs are wrong. I mean no disrepect to SB when I say I believe the dogs.

I could accept that there was a transfer of cadaver odour to the blue bag and other clothes belonging to KM and a child`s T-shirt but would this odour have been enough to necessitate the car boot being left open for days to air out? Also would cadaver odour transfer to an ignition key? I sometimes wish Martin G would come on here anonymously to explain.

I'm under the impression it was more than just a scent in car , but fluids hence the reason the police believe the body was frozen and defrosting started to happen on journey, I still believe imo that having keys to church didn't sit right with me, I can understand a priest being at access 24/7 but what seems like unlimited access to a church feels at odds( please correct me if I am wrong about church )

dragonfly wrote:

Woofer wrote:

sami wrote:Aiyoyo, I tend to agree with the theory that it was not a body transported in the boot of the car. For this to happen some +/- 25 days later just feels wrong to me, even for this story. My opinion is that it is likely the blue bag and other bits that were transported for disposal. The bag became significant and important, the PJ were questioning its existance.

When I first read SB's story, my reaction was what a great idea. Bury the body in the one place that had been thoroughly searched and most unlikely ever to be searched again. A good reason for McCann's arrogance, and he has an air of arrogance about him when it comes to talking about finding Madeleine's body. But then I read his opinion on the timings and that discounted that theory. However my biggest doubt of all is the dogs, they did not alert. Why not ?

So either the timings are wrong or the dogs are wrong. I mean no disrepect to SB when I say I believe the dogs.

I could accept that there was a transfer of cadaver odour to the blue bag and other clothes belonging to KM and a child`s T-shirt but would this odour have been enough to necessitate the car boot being left open for days to air out? Also would cadaver odour transfer to an ignition key? I sometimes wish Martin G would come on here anonymously to explain.

I'm under the impression it was more than just a scent in car , but fluids hence the reason the police believe the body was frozen and defrosting started to happen on journey, I still believe imo that having keys to church didn't sit right with me, I can understand a priest being at access 24/7 but what seems like unlimited access to a church feels at odds( please correct me if I am wrong about church )

No you are correct, they had keys and could visit any time of day or night.

Stephen Birch wrote:Ladies & Gentleman, within 2 days Portuguese Press and myself will release information about the Policia Judiaria, never before released in public.

I will post as soon as it is send to me in writing.

Regards

Stephen D. Birch

Where did you get this info about the Policia Judiaria ???

I just went to have a look at the cesspit [I do that approx once a week and disinfect properly afterwards] and was flabbergasted to see them publishing a post, looking like it came from here [same topic title, same lay-out and colours] of "today 9:40" by "Stephen Birch", in which he writes very nasty things about Gonçalo Amaral and begs him to "confess" ...

Anyone?

cesspit?

Hi,It was on here but i think its been deleted for some reason

It's gone Chateleine. Whooshed,

The "cesspit" must be JATYK2.

Châtelaine wrote:I just went to have a look at the cesspit [I do that approx once a week and disinfect properly afterwards] and was flabbergasted to see them publishing a post, looking like it came from here [same topic title, same lay-out and colours] of "today 9:40" by "Stephen Birch", in which he writes very nasty things about Gonçalo Amaral and begs him to "confess" ...

Anyone?

Believe you me, he wrote that post on this very forum! Many of us saw it. Thankfully, admin deleted it but obviously not before it was copied to over there.

The mask always slips!

Yes I saw it too - most revealing.

OK TY Jean, just had a look, now I feel all dirty :puke: