A question

It is very interesting to see how many of us have reached more or less similar conclusions regarding certain visible personality traits exhibited by the McCanns and the underlying dynamics of their relationship. Some basing their opinion on their professional training and expertise, others on their own research into the subject.

I have always believed their love of limelight will bring about their inevitable fall from grace. Thanks to the increased openness with which official documents are routinely and instantly made available on Internet and due to the proliferation of social media, it has become extremely difficult to keep any information hidden from the public, let alone make disappear once released.

We need to remain focused and weed out red herrings from facts, follow our deductive reasoning rather than groundless speculations, although sometimes a spark of intuition may be just what's needed to crack a mystery such as this.

Ribisl wrote:It is very interesting to see how many of us have reached more or less similar conclusions regarding certain visible personality traits exhibited by the McCanns and the underlying dynamics of their relationship. Some basing their opinion on their professional training and expertise, others on their own research into the subject.

I have always believed their love of limelight will bring about their inevitable fall from grace. Thanks to the increased openness with which official documents are routinely and instantly made available on Internet and due to the proliferation of social media, it has become extremely difficult to keep any information hidden from the public, let alone make disappear once released.

We need to remain focused and weed out red herrings from facts, follow our deductive reasoning rather than groundless speculations, although sometimes a spark of intuition may be just what's needed to crack a mystery such as this.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Exactly, in agreement with you. It's the spark, out of the blue, that starts the thought line.
After that the red herrings need to be removed and the consensus remains. Keep those sparks coming. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

monkey mind wrote:

southern_gal wrote:I I know that the PJ didn't find any forensic evidence that Maddie had slept in the bed with cuddle cat but did anyone check the bed in the parents room for any traces of Maddie?

Southern Gal,
The PJ did a full forensic examination of 5A. They found no evidence to indicate Madeleine McCann had been in that apartment at all. Nothing. Nada. Not even a toothbrush from which DNA could be lifted.

There were I believe 169 hairs lifted from those premises. Not one belonged to Maddie. They did however find hairs belonging to RO, MO and DP, three presumably rather placid adult doctors managed to shed hair in the premises after only the briefest of visits yet a lively almost 4 year old child, rough and tumbling with her siblings, eating and sleeping in that apartment for 6 days and 5 nights shed not a hair, not a single physical forensic indication that she had been there. Not a one. Not even slobber on her pillow, they had to travel a couple of thousand miles back home for that.

I realize what I'm about to say might seem rather "trollish" but it's not meant in this spirit. I suppose where I'm coming from is I've seen a lot of reference to lack of DNA in 5A and I can't see where Snr Amaral referred to it. I realize that he didn't show his "full hand" or so to speak but something of this magnitude would no doubt put a very different spin on the investigation. I'd sincerely doubt the Portuguese would miss something so important.

Re the evidence bags, I think they compared the samples to T9, Murat and the cleaner. And the remaining samples were unmatched, there doesn't seem to be a reference to comparing the unmatched to the children therefore is it not possible that these were subsequently tested but not mentioned as they weren't a central part of the investigation?

Re the "no toothbrush, hairbrush etc", I've seen it mentioned repeatedly but again I'm sure this would have sparked alarm bells and had some mention in the files or Snr Amaral's book but there's nothing. Could it be that the toothbrush and other clothing had already been moved upstairs before the photographs were taken?

Really what I'm saying is if there was no DNA from the children in 5A it implies almost without doubt that MW were involved in the cover up and the PJ's were on the wrong track completely. And if the family weren't in the apartment what does the dog's evidence imply?

This is from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

May 21 - Dr Gerald McCann meets with people from Rothley, where he sees hundreds of tributes from villagers. He is also given a guided tour of the ‘incident room’ at Leicestershire Police HQ, Enderby, Leics, where he professes himself impressed with the latest ‘state-of-the-art’ technology. He then meets with various lawyers, referring to them already as his ‘team of lawyers’. He plans strategies for developing the website, promoting the Fund, and appointing a Campaign Manager in addition to the support provided by the head of the government ‘spin machine’ Clarence Mitchell. Only after this visit to England does Dr McCann release the well-known ‘last photo’ of him and Madeleine. During this day, Dr McCann produces a pillow-case said to have Madeleine’s DNA on it. The police could find no trace of any of Madeleine’s DNA from any of her clothes, bedding, hairbrush, toothbrush, or other personal items in the McCanns’ apartment in Praia da Luz, a fact that remains unexplained to this day.

Unquote

This is a very interesting website with factual information and a concise timeline.
Hello Finn - I was hoping you'd return!

tigger wrote:This is from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

May 21 - Dr Gerald McCann meets with people from Rothley, where he sees hundreds of tributes from villagers. He is also given a guided tour of the ‘incident room’ at Leicestershire Police HQ, Enderby, Leics, where he professes himself impressed with the latest ‘state-of-the-art’ technology. He then meets with various lawyers, referring to them already as his ‘team of lawyers’. He plans strategies for developing the website, promoting the Fund, and appointing a Campaign Manager in addition to the support provided by the head of the government ‘spin machine’ Clarence Mitchell. Only after this visit to England does Dr McCann release the well-known ‘last photo’ of him and Madeleine. During this day, Dr McCann produces a pillow-case said to have Madeleine’s DNA on it. The police could find no trace of any of Madeleine’s DNA from any of her clothes, bedding, hairbrush, toothbrush, or other personal items in the McCanns’ apartment in Praia da Luz, a fact that remains unexplained to this day.

Unquote



This is a very interesting website with factual information and a concise timeline.
Hello Finn - I was hoping you'd return!

Hello Tigger and all, it's good to be back now that work and travel have settled down. Tigger, I can't thank you enough for that link, and can't believe I missed so important a detail. It's great to get that piece of the puzzle sorted and apologies all for my post.

re maddies DNA in apartment. i have been under the conclusion that it was so contamiated by all the people in and out before said sweep of apart. and they were not looking for maddies DNA ,just assumed it would have been amongst all the others also a lot of comtamination gone on .i think untill the cardboard sent later that may have been needed to conform a dna for mad.to use with the pillowcase retreived from gerr, trip back home to get it from m bed. i believe that the heelstick blood sent to mr Amaral he felt was match to pillowcase one ,after that they concluded this was m. DNA.this is just some memories that stick in ones mind ,mr amaral seemed to believe it was kosher .joyce1938

I think you#re right, Joyce, Snr Amaral seems to have his doubts. And that leads to the next question, was DNA found on these items but not matching the pillowcase sample?

the reason fin that some dna samples werent found on toothbrush hairbrush was it was said all 3 kids shared both between them.and all clothes were sent for laundry pretty quick, suppesedly amelie was said to be wearing maddies sandels ,would have thought feet werent same size ? It seems from what mr. amara. has said ,that he will reveal all at some point,so some we dont yet have in filesYET.joyce1938

The effective use of DNA as evidence requires the collection and analysis of samples from the crime scene to determine the exact source of the DNA.

There certainly seems to have been a problem in genetically identifying Madeleine, or at least in obtaining a biological profile. For most of us it doesn’t seem plausible or realistic that all genetic traces of a child staying with a family in a holiday apartment for a week just disappear, just like the child herself.

We've been treated to all kinds of explanations for this phenomena, the police not initially looking for the missing persons DNA only an abductors, the bungling PJ didn’t bother to look for any, the PJ contaminated the crime scene etc. etc. etc.

The thing is though, when the police forensics collected evidentiary samples they did so not knowing who’s biological trace evidence it was they were collecting, until it was analysed. This is why it is imperative to get biological profiles for elimination purposes.

Thanks to the internet and satellite TV and CSI NY etc. we all know DNA can be found on just about anything and there were family there to supply reference samples for the purpose of eliminating them as contributors to samples. Children are especially messing little creatures too and there should have been ample places and items both in the apartment and on clothing in which to obtain DNA samples, and I would say even more from their home in the UK.
Why then was no genetic reference sample obtained from places and articles in PDL? They couldn't even identify a number of hairs, 12 in total, found on clothing supposedly belonging to the missing person. There were according to the report not even any hairs on her hairbrush.

And as we know the biological material found as a result of the dog’s detection's is in question.

If we were to look at this as evidence, then What is the evidence telling us?

On the face of it the missing person from Portugal’s genetic identity was never established even though they captured physical evidence / forensic / genetic biological material from Portugal.

What difference would it have made if the police / forensics had been able to identify genetic material captured in Portugal in order to be able to get a profile?
Or wording it differently why didn't someone want the police to get a profile of the missing person from evidence found in Portugal?

Could it be possible that someone didn't want the police / forensics to attempt to compare any biological material from the missing person in Portugal to the material found in Rothley?

What would have happened if they had and the genetic profiles were different?

What would that mean?

.

Tombraider wrote:The effective use of DNA as evidence requires the collection and analysis of samples from the crime scene to determine the exact source of the DNA.

There certainly seems to have been a problem in genetically identifying Madeleine, or at least in obtaining a biological profile. For most of us it doesn’t seem plausible or realistic that all genetic traces of a child staying with a family in a holiday apartment for a week just disappear, just like the child herself.

We've been treated to all kinds of explanations for this phenomena, the police not initially looking for the missing persons DNA only an abductors, the bungling PJ didn’t bother to look for any, the PJ contaminated the crime scene etc. etc. etc.

The thing is though, when the police forensics collected evidentiary samples they did so not knowing who’s biological trace evidence it was they were collecting, until it was analysed. This is why it is imperative to get biological profiles for elimination purposes.

Thanks to the internet and satellite TV and CSI NY etc. we all know DNA can be found on just about anything and there were family there to supply reference samples for the purpose of eliminating them as contributors to samples. Children are especially messing little creatures too and there should have been ample places and items both in the apartment and on clothing in which to obtain DNA samples, and I would say even more from their home in the UK.
Why then was no genetic reference sample obtained from places and articles in PDL? They couldn't even identify a number of hairs, 12 in total, found on clothing supposedly belonging to the missing person. There were according to the report not even any hairs on her hairbrush.

And as we know the biological material found as a result of the dog’s detection's is in question.

If we were to look at this as evidence, then What is the evidence telling us?

On the face of it the missing person from Portugal’s genetic identity was never established even though they captured physical evidence / forensic / genetic biological material from Portugal.

What difference would it have made if the police / forensics had been able to identify genetic material captured in Portugal in order to be able to get a profile?
Or wording it differently why didn't someone want the police to get a profile of the missing person from evidence found in Portugal?

Could it be possible that someone didn't want the police / forensics to attempt to compare any biological material from the missing person in Portugal to the material found in Rothley?

What would have happened if they had and the genetic profiles were different?

What would that mean?

.

It would mean that a completely justified question would be: did the child -IF it was her stumbling on that staircase- even reach the appartment?

Is it possible she never made it to nr 5A?

Finn wrote:I think you#re right, Joyce, Snr Amaral seems to have his doubts. And that leads to the next question, was DNA found on these items but not matching the pillowcase sample?

Whose pillowcase was this anyway?

Who said so?

Do we have independent evidence of it having been used by Maddie -and then not having been washed by -say- the nanny- in the weeks after after departure to PdL and GM collecting some stuff in Rothley?

Portia wrote:

Finn wrote:I think you#re right, Joyce, Snr Amaral seems to have his doubts. And that leads to the next question, was DNA found on these items but not matching the pillowcase sample?

Whose pillowcase was this anyway?

Who said so?

Do we have independent evidence of it having been used by Maddie -and then not having been washed by -say- the nanny- in the weeks after after departure to PdL and GM collecting some stuff in Rothley?

Didn't someone like the sister go into the house at Rothley to let some shopping in or something, I have a vague memory, because I thought that anyone could have gone in and done anything to import, export or destroy eveidence.
It's also not clear if Gerry was accompanied by a policeman, if the pillow case was collected under 'forensic' conditions.
It's all to airy fairy.

My initial understanding of need for DNA id for Madeleine would be for it to be used to identify any remains that might be found subsequently and that might be beyond physical identification. So I would not expect G McCann to have been supervised in obtaining such a sample. No doubt there were other items in her house that might have yielded a sample but a pillowcase of several days use is seen as a best host. But what of her pillowcase in PDC? I dont think the bedlinen was changed that day.

Tombraider wrote:The effective use of DNA as evidence requires the collection and analysis of samples from the crime scene to determine the exact source of the DNA.

There certainly seems to have been a problem in genetically identifying Madeleine, or at least in obtaining a biological profile. For most of us it doesn’t seem plausible or realistic that all genetic traces of a child staying with a family in a holiday apartment for a week just disappear, just like the child herself.

We've been treated to all kinds of explanations for this phenomena, the police not initially looking for the missing persons DNA only an abductors, the bungling PJ didn’t bother to look for any, the PJ contaminated the crime scene etc. etc. etc.

The thing is though, when the police forensics collected evidentiary samples they did so not knowing who’s biological trace evidence it was they were collecting, until it was analysed. This is why it is imperative to get biological profiles for elimination purposes.

Thanks to the internet and satellite TV and CSI NY etc. we all know DNA can be found on just about anything and there were family there to supply reference samples for the purpose of eliminating them as contributors to samples. Children are especially messing little creatures too and there should have been ample places and items both in the apartment and on clothing in which to obtain DNA samples, and I would say even more from their home in the UK.
Why then was no genetic reference sample obtained from places and articles in PDL? They couldn't even identify a number of hairs, 12 in total, found on clothing supposedly belonging to the missing person. There were according to the report not even any hairs on her hairbrush.

And as we know the biological material found as a result of the dog’s detection's is in question.

If we were to look at this as evidence, then What is the evidence telling us?

On the face of it the missing person from Portugal’s genetic identity was never established even though they captured physical evidence / forensic / genetic biological material from Portugal.

What difference would it have made if the police / forensics had been able to identify genetic material captured in Portugal in order to be able to get a profile?
Or wording it differently why didn't someone want the police to get a profile of the missing person from evidence found in Portugal?

Could it be possible that someone didn't want the police / forensics to attempt to compare any biological material from the missing person in Portugal to the material found in Rothley?

What would have happened if they had and the genetic profiles were different?

What would that mean?

.

At a stretch DNA that didn't match the person who Madeleine was introduced as. Or masking something that the tests would have uncovered from the samples. Either way a big concern.

There should have been ample DNA from Madeleine on her clothing, her hats, towels and face cloths since we know she was bathed at least once on vacation, her bedding, clothing toys at home would also be covered in her DNA.

I would be interested to know how many toothbrushes were in the apartment and how many, if any, at home.

Did the children all have their own toothbrushes or was there just one or maybe two?

Considering they were doctors why did they allow children to share the same toothbrush? it is unhygienic for one and a sure fire way to spread infections.

If the PJ struggled to find any DNA they can conclusively say was from Madeleine then either she wasn't there or the apartment was forensicly cleaned.

Why would they clean an apartment so thoroughly as to erase pretty much all traces of their children being there when there was a cleaner who visited to do the apartment. Housework is not top of the agenda when on vacation, a general rough tidy up usually does, washing curtains is not a typical job unless they get something spilled on them that leaves an obvious stain and even then it may be ignored or hidden away.

Are they so houseproud at home i wonder, no touching this or that, no toys left lying around, everything spotless and immaculate.

Unless one of the parents has ocd and it is linked to cleaning, what were they trying to hide?

Investigators look not only for what is there that shouldn't be, they also look for what isn't there that should be.

bobbin wrote:

Portia wrote:

Finn wrote:I think you#re right, Joyce, Snr Amaral seems to have his doubts. And that leads to the next question, was DNA found on these items but not matching the pillowcase sample?

Whose pillowcase was this anyway?

Who said so?

Do we have independent evidence of it having been used by Maddie -and then not having been washed by -say- the nanny- in the weeks after after departure to PdL and GM collecting some stuff in Rothley?

Didn't someone like the sister go into the house at Rothley to let some shopping in or something, I have a vague memory, because I thought that anyone could have gone in and done anything to import, export or destroy eveidence.
It's also not clear if Gerry was accompanied by a policeman, if the pillow case was collected under 'forensic' conditions.
It's all to airy fairy.

Well yes, I think there was a policeman, which wouldn't make much difference. Why not find her hairs there? Because at that time the twins were very blond, Maddie's hair was closer to light brown. Why only take a pillowcase which could have been switched/shared or whatever.
Besides, it was the nice LP who still have a link to the TM website and whose inspector in charge was on first name terms. Good old Stu! must have been chuffed to bits being allowed to call the McCanns by their first names.

Yes Bobbin, I forgot who it was, a woman whom Kate phoned. You've got to admire the woman, child stolen, totally non functioning but very busy as well (all her own words) remembered to call a friend to cancel the grocery order. The friend commented on the enormous number of press around the house.

hi all, yes the toothbrush we were told by a parent all kids used as far as i recall,hairbrush same .we have been here before a few times and mostly came to conclusion ,yes you would think must be dna to be found in flat .its a sure mystery why going to england was best way to make sure that the dna was from m.as it supposedy was a match for the blood spot sent in package to police in portugal,which some felt it must be from the data base of heel pricks taken from all babies at birthin england .i cant hope to prove any of this but think some was in mr amarals book,he seemed o k with that ,again maybe we wont know why or truth of a lot ,we have only a portion of the files that were released for public to peruse. we hope one day to have more info so a better idea ,but till then not too much can be done to gain what info we might like to see.joyce1938

tigger wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Portia wrote:

Finn wrote:I think you#re right, Joyce, Snr Amaral seems to have his doubts. And that leads to the next question, was DNA found on these items but not matching the pillowcase sample?

Whose pillowcase was this anyway?

Who said so?

Do we have independent evidence of it having been used by Maddie -and then not having been washed by -say- the nanny- in the weeks after after departure to PdL and GM collecting some stuff in Rothley?

Didn't someone like the sister go into the house at Rothley to let some shopping in or something, I have a vague memory, because I thought that anyone could have gone in and done anything to import, export or destroy eveidence.
It's also not clear if Gerry was accompanied by a policeman, if the pillow case was collected under 'forensic' conditions.
It's all to airy fairy.

Well yes, I think there was a policeman, which wouldn't make much difference. Why not find her hairs there? Because at that time the twins were very blond, Maddie's hair was closer to light brown. Why only take a pillowcase which could have been switched/shared or whatever.
Besides, it was the nice LP who still have a link to the TM website and whose inspector in charge was on first name terms. Good old Stu! must have been chuffed to bits being allowed to call the McCanns by their first names. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes Bobbin, I forgot who it was, a woman whom Kate phoned. You've got to admire the woman, child stolen, totally non functioning but very busy as well (all her own words) remembered to call a friend to cancel the grocery order. The friend commented on the enormous number of press around the house.

It was Janet Kennedy....

Andrew Graystone talks to Janet Kennedy and Clarence Mitchell about The McCanns and the Media.



JK: I -- I’m not really sure myself about that, you know -- at the time -- It’s not something I’ve discussed with them. My own feeling of the first few days was, you know, just try to get in touch with the Foreign Office, you know, to try and get some kind of help in terms of it being a foreign country.

I mean I know that the morning after it happened I -- Kate, you know, had phoned me because -- this sounds terribly trivial -- but they were due home the next day and she’d booked an online shop. I won’t give the name of the -- of the company -- of the supermarket -- and, you know, she sort of wanted something to be done about it. So I just went up to the house, you know, and erm -- to sort that out. And, you know, I just wasn’t prepared for the media interest at the house itself.

AG: What -- What happened?

JK: Well, there were just over a hundred people with cameras and reporters -- And they’ve got a sort of gate and then a little driveway and I mean I was -- I suppose I was really daunted, you know, by this sort of complete media intrusion, as I thought, at the time.

AG: What does it feel like?

JK: Well, if I tell you that I sort of knelt on the playroom floor so that I wouldn’t be seen because there was -- I was aware there were long range cameras focussing on the house and there were just flashing lights, flashing cameras, people continually coming up and knocking on the door and I just wouldn’t answer the door. You know, I felt totally imprisoned really and very threatened and, you know, I would think I am quite a mature person who can deal with all kinds of crises. But it was quite overwhelming I have to say -- just this complete takeover of my life, you know, at that time -- and poor Kate and Gerry there, you know, with no Madeleine.


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

I won’t give the name of the -- of the company -- of the supermarket -- and, you know, she sort of wanted something to be done about it.

I think we can guess it is likely to be the same supermarket Maddie got her sticker book from - Sainsburys!

dentdelion wrote:My initial understanding of need for DNA id for Madeleine would be for it to be used to identify any remains that might be found subsequently and that might be beyond physical identification. So I would not expect G McCann to have been supervised in obtaining such a sample. No doubt there were other items in her house that might have yielded a sample but a pillowcase of several days use is seen as a best host. But what of her pillowcase in PDC? I dont think the bedlinen was changed that day.

Hi
The crime scene in 5a was compromised by having every tom dick and harry and his aunt all over it before police arrived including the kids bedroom. Getting a sample of Madeleines DNA from her bedroom at home was the better sterile scene. Gerry got a pillowcase from her bedroom. her profile was lifted from this and used as a control sample against which to test any materials lifted from the crime scene. It was definitely a sample from her as it was tested against her parents and siblings DNA and found to be from a female child of the Mccanns but different from Amelies.

But what of her pillowcase in PDC? I dont think the bedlinen was changed that day.

Maddie had just been sleeping in it!!!!

tigger wrote:This is from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

May 21 - Dr Gerald McCann meets with people from Rothley, where he sees hundreds of tributes from villagers. He is also given a guided tour of the ‘incident room’ at Leicestershire Police HQ, Enderby, Leics, where he professes himself impressed with the latest ‘state-of-the-art’ technology. He then meets with various lawyers, referring to them already as his ‘team of lawyers’. He plans strategies for developing the website, promoting the Fund, and appointing a Campaign Manager in addition to the support provided by the head of the government ‘spin machine’ Clarence Mitchell. Only after this visit to England does Dr McCann release the well-known ‘last photo’ of him and Madeleine. During this day, Dr McCann produces a pillow-case said to have Madeleine’s DNA on it. The police could find no trace of any of Madeleine’s DNA from any of her clothes, bedding, hairbrush, toothbrush, or other personal items in the McCanns’ apartment in Praia da Luz, a fact that remains unexplained to this day.
!

Whats interesting about this...."The police could find no trace of any of Madeleine’s DNA from any of her clothes, bedding, hairbrush, toothbrush, or other personal items in the McCanns’ apartment in Praia da Luz, a fact that remains unexplained to this day".....On 4th May the mccanns moved apartments to apartment 4G

The GNR dogs
On 10th May at about 20h10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May.......Initiating the diligence, the first sniffer dog, after having smelled the towel used in the previous operation, began searching, it being certain that next to the doors of some apartment he demonstrated major interest whilst he did not even approach others...... It is certain however, that near apartment 5J, 5H and 4G, that the dog showed major interest in smelling the doors and the immediate areas. He states that next to 5H, there were two bags of rubbish which may condition the dog. Just outside apartment 4G was a tray with plates, cutlery and cloth napkins, apparently used. It is certain that this apartment is the one where the missing child's parents were lodged (at the time). In relation to the dog's interest at doorway 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people inside the apartment.

They couldn't get anything from 5A where Maddie had been staying for nearly a week, but the dogs indicated to the apartment where the mccanns went to where Maddie never went!!

Did gerry mccann give the PJ an incorrect towel for the dogs on purpose?

5H is the apartment the Paynes were staying

jd wrote:

But what of her pillowcase in PDC? I dont think the bedlinen was changed that day.

Maddie had just been sleeping in it!!!!

but it was contaminated ergo USELESS as a control sample

jd wrote:

tigger wrote:This is from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

May 21 - Dr Gerald McCann meets with people from Rothley, where he sees hundreds of tributes from villagers. He is also given a guided tour of the ‘incident room’ at Leicestershire Police HQ, Enderby, Leics, where he professes himself impressed with the latest ‘state-of-the-art’ technology. He then meets with various lawyers, referring to them already as his ‘team of lawyers’. He plans strategies for developing the website, promoting the Fund, and appointing a Campaign Manager in addition to the support provided by the head of the government ‘spin machine’ Clarence Mitchell. Only after this visit to England does Dr McCann release the well-known ‘last photo’ of him and Madeleine. During this day, Dr McCann produces a pillow-case said to have Madeleine’s DNA on it. The police could find no trace of any of Madeleine’s DNA from any of her clothes, bedding, hairbrush, toothbrush, or other personal items in the McCanns’ apartment in Praia da Luz, a fact that remains unexplained to this day.
!

Whats interesting about this...."The police could find no trace of any of Madeleine’s DNA from any of her clothes, bedding, hairbrush, toothbrush, or other personal items in the McCanns’ apartment in Praia da Luz, a fact that remains unexplained to this day".....On 4th May the mccanns moved apartments to apartment 4G

The GNR dogs
On 10th May at about 20h10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May.......Initiating the diligence, the first sniffer dog, after having smelled the towel used in the previous operation, began searching, it being certain that next to the doors of some apartment he demonstrated major interest whilst he did not even approach others...... It is certain however, that near apartment 5J, 5H and 4G, that the dog showed major interest in smelling the doors and the immediate areas. He states that next to 5H, there were two bags of rubbish which may condition the dog. Just outside apartment 4G was a tray with plates, cutlery and cloth napkins, apparently used. It is certain that this apartment is the one where the missing child's parents were lodged (at the time). In relation to the dog's interest at doorway 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people inside the apartment.

They couldn't get anything from 5A where Maddie had been staying for nearly a week, but the dogs indicated to the apartment where the mccanns went to where Maddie never went!!

Did gerry mccann give the PJ an incorrect towel for the dogs on purpose?

5H is the apartment the Paynes were staying

This post makes no sense JD

No dna of Maddie was found in 5a but dogs reacted to food in other flats?? And this means something? Please join the dots for us JD, thanks in advance, if you want me or others to spend time or energy researching you had better get clearer than that otherwise you come across as a time wasting WUM Sending people on wild goose chases