Re: 19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express

by ShuBob 20.05.13 15:02

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:Just been reading the Daily Star.
The team of Brit cleaners went from apartment to apartment offering their services with a focus on ex-pats. A source said there was “quite a culture of people drifting from door to door” offering to tidy gardens and scrub windows or roofs.
There is quite a culture of that here in England, we call them travellers or gypsies. I wonder if that is were we are heading? When in doubt, refer to the old myth of gypsies stealing children.
I think you could be right. Perhaps the Yard are trying to keep it simple and will ignore all the conflicting statements and muddled timelines. A nice tidy solution being set up with a new cast of characters. No further questioning of the Tapas et all required - dismissed because irrelevant? However, I have a feeling that that even this 'new' theory will, in time, unravel.

If that's their plan, how do they intend to get away with it given that the Express amongst others are keeping a close eye on proceedings? I think the culture of blatant police whitewash is on the wane.

by Pershing36 20.05.13 15:06

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:Just been reading the Daily Star.
The team of Brit cleaners went from apartment to apartment offering their services with a focus on ex-pats. A source said there was “quite a culture of people drifting from door to door” offering to tidy gardens and scrub windows or roofs.
There is quite a culture of that here in England, we call them travellers or gypsies. I wonder if that is were we are heading? When in doubt, refer to the old myth of gypsies stealing children.
I think you could be right. Perhaps the Yard are trying to keep it simple and will ignore all the conflicting statements and muddled timelines. A nice tidy solution being set up with a new cast of characters. No further questioning of the Tapas et all required - dismissed because irrelevant? However, I have a feeling that that even this 'new' theory will, in time, unravel.

Agreed, right now you wouldn't want to bet on it going in any direction. Just looking at whats been said. In the UK if you said I am looking for a bunch of people travelling around in a white Ford transit offering to do odd jobs like clearing roofs, gardening and cleaning you would automatically think gypsies. That seem to fit perfectly into this description and they have the added bonus of the reputation of taking children and vanishing into thin air without a trace. Surprised the press hasn't come up with this one yet.

by Woofer 20.05.13 15:09

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:Just been reading the Daily Star.
The team of Brit cleaners went from apartment to apartment offering their services with a focus on ex-pats. A source said there was “quite a culture of people drifting from door to door” offering to tidy gardens and scrub windows or roofs.
There is quite a culture of that here in England, we call them travellers or gypsies. I wonder if that is were we are heading? When in doubt, refer to the old myth of gypsies stealing children.
I think you could be right. Perhaps the Yard are trying to keep it simple and will ignore all the conflicting statements and muddled timelines. A nice tidy solution being set up with a new cast of characters. No further questioning of the Tapas et al required - dismissed because irrelevant? However, I have a feeling that that even this 'new' theory will, in time, unravel.

Wherever SY try to steer the result - there is always going to be the question of `why did Eddie indicate cadaver odour and Keela indicate blood?`.

by View-from-Ireland 20.05.13 15:14

Has anybody watched the full hour and thirty-seven minute video of the two dogs at work? Until last night I had only seen the short 4-5 minute clips (and Amaral's documentary). The original hour and a half video is well worth a watch if you have time.

by View-from-Ireland 20.05.13 15:15

Double post.

by noddy100 20.05.13 15:18

View-from-Ireland wrote:"Wherever SY try to steer the result - there is always going to be the question of `why did Eddie indicate cadaver odour and Keela indicate blood?`. " Edit: something went wrong here.

This is my issue And why I think there is a high level cover up Why on earth wouldn't the police at SY want to take the forensics and run with it and solve this They would be the big heroes

by View-from-Ireland 20.05.13 15:21

noddy100 wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:"Wherever SY try to steer the result - there is always going to be the question of `why did Eddie indicate cadaver odour and Keela indicate blood?`. " Edit: something went wrong here.
This is my issue And why I think there is a high level cover up Why on earth wouldn't the police at SY want to take the forensics and run with it and solve this They would be the big heroes

by Pershing36 20.05.13 15:28

noddy100 wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:"Wherever SY try to steer the result - there is always going to be the question of `why did Eddie indicate cadaver odour and Keela indicate blood?`. " Edit: something went wrong here.
This is my issue And why I think there is a high level cover up Why on earth wouldn't the police at SY want to take the forensics and run with it and solve this They would be the big heroes

It feels like there was a briefing or something before the review and they were told in uncertain terms that they were not allowed to look in certain directions. In other words it is an abduction, find us evidence of an abduction. You must be able to find something in this lot, find us an abductor. In my mind that is the only way that all the forensic evidence is being ignored. You would think at very least they would say 'look we cannot rely on it because of this or that'. But instead it is ignored. If this is the case it must be very frustrating for the detectives on the case. The sad fact is a majority of people have forgotten about the early days of the case and wont even remember the dogs or the forensics. The press are too scared to say anything in the UK. I wonder what the PJ are making of this? They must think we are ridiculous.

by Guest 20.05.13 15:35

worriedmum wrote:quote''

Crept in through the shutters;
Soothed the weeping (KH?) or crying (Maddie, Sean a/o Amelie?) persons in the appartment 5a, as witnessed by Anonymous
Jemmied the shutters,
Crept out of the shutters;
Vanished into thin air for six years '' unquote
BUT you forgot to add- 'tainted the apartment with cadaver odour' ... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nah, didn't the PJ do that? It's a well known fact, isn't it? After all they famously collect and keep vials with cadaverine from every tourist entering their country by air, road a/o sea on a daily basis. And their logistics are such that, in case some tourist goes missing, they are able to produce that persons vial stante pede and distibute its contents on the belongings of their nearest and dearest, even after weeks, even at a different location, even without anyone noticing a thing. By Golly, these PJ-guys must be the top of the bill! About on a par with those six british housecleaners in their white van, who have not yet been cleared of having swept appartment 5a AFTER the fact, instead of picking up the child AS a fact.

by aiyoyo 20.05.13 15:46

View-from-Ireland wrote:
MJC wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:I am at work so my post was a little imprecise, should have said 'may be known to McCanns'. Read it yesterday in a report.
Thank you - that sounds much more like it, but I should still, please, like to see the reference as I can't find anywhere where it says the Moyes or either of the mystery couples were 'known to the McCanns'. All I can find is that the Moyes couple said they were roused by 'friends of the McCanns' at about 1pm Friday 4 May to help look for Madeleine. Could that have been what you were referring to?
No it wasn't that. I read something along the lines 'mystery couple may have been known to the McCanns' but I cannot find the link. Sorry about that.

Could have been Rachel & Partner as according to her witness statement she had stayed in the Apt on Wednesday's night (2nd) ,went to bed at 9.00pm, but did not hear anything. From her perspective if Maddie was crying and she'd entered 5A to soothe her she would not have regarded that as unusual, so her "did not hear anything" could be referring to did not hear any strange noise or commotion. If Maddie was crying and Rachel happened to be in the next apt, she's bound to have heard the crying, plus if she knew that Maddie's parents were out for the night, then if she'd entered the apt to soothe Maddie it would make sense without having to alert reception.

by **PeterMac** 20.05.13 15:46

Witness statement of Pamela Fenn 20 August 2007 She states that on the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22H30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. . . At about 23H45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse. As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.

NOTE: She did not KNOW it was the parents. It could have been the 'couple' - see below. She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night.

SCOTLAND YARD detectives are trying to find a middle-aged couple said to have entered Madeleine McCann’s holiday apartment to comfort her because she was crying, we can reveal today. It is believed they entered the bedroom on May 2, 2007, the evening before Madeleine disappeared from the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz on Portugal’s Algarve. . . .It is already known that Pamela Fenn, who lived directly above apartment 5a, heard a child, believed to be Madeleine, crying for about an hour on the evening of May 2 {For which now read 1st May, see above } She was so concerned she rang a friend in the village to ask what to do and considered ringing Portugal’s Policia Judiciaria.

Kate's book refers to Madeleine reporting having cried on 2nd. Whichever way we look at it there are now, in the public domain and being openly discussed, two independent reports of crying from a child or children, on two consecutive nights, 1st and 2nd, both so serious and prolonged that one witness was moved to ring a friend and considered calling the Police, but did not do so as a 'couple' - possibly the parents arrived, though they make no mention of this in statements of the book - and the other watched an unknown couple entering the apartment to deal with whatever was going on. I cannot wait to see how Mitchell is going to get them out of this trap, for that is what I think it is. When can they appear in front of a reporter again? Their celeb TV interviews are surely over. But Mitchell did boast that he had answers to everything the police did, or did not have, so he must surely be able to get out of this one. His problem is that if he starts to dismiss witnesses as unreliable, this criticism must also apply to the Tapas 9. Gerry has already done it with some aspects of JT's statement, but there are limits as to how much 'cherry picking' he will be allowed to get away with.

by Newintown 20.05.13 16:04

Deleted - lost all of my post.

by ShuBob 20.05.13 16:17

PeterMac, the pair are as brazen as anything so I expect them to continue giving interviews as before. The issue will be with the interviewers, if they dare mention any anomalies/inconsistencies in their statements/book/previous interviews etc.

by Guest 20.05.13 16:27

If there IS such a thing as a couple, maybe known to the McCanns, who went into 5A to smooth a weeping / crying child, they certainly seem to have been able to silence her ...

by aiyoyo 20.05.13 16:35

Châtelaine wrote:If there IS such a thing as a couple, maybe known to the McCanns, who went into 5A to smooth a weeping / crying child, they certainly seem to have been able to silence her ...

The couple must have been known to Maddie too.
Can't have been strangers going in to soothe her one night only to return the next night to snatch her. Does not make sense at all.

by aiyoyo 20.05.13 16:37

ShuBob wrote:PeterMac, the pair are as brazen as anything so I expect them to continue giving interviews as before. The issue will be with the interviewers, if they dare mention any anomalies/inconsistencies in their statements/book/previous interviews etc.

Concurred. The pair are so brazen,nothing short of an arrest will stop them from giving interviews.

by Pershing36 20.05.13 16:51

All they will do is switch the blame to the people who heard the crying. Whats the betting they will say if they had been informed of the crying they would not have left her and she would still be here.

by tosca 20.05.13 16:55

Martin Brunt has left Portugal becos he was reporting from Lyon, France this morning, just to let you all know, does this mean nothing is imminent?

by Guest 20.05.13 17:03

I'd want to speak with the 'cleaners' too.....to find out what they had cleaned, what they hadn't (and should have) and also about any alleged missing tools of the trade. Its easy to make them appear as something they are not if a 'source' describes others that pass through the complex offering similar services in the same paragraph.

by Pershing36 20.05.13 17:08

I tell you this story of the soothing couple has ruffled a few feathers on the supporters site.

Apparently we have all fallen for (they must think it's a trap). OId Moany Farce is having kittens about Brunt and the Express paper.

If old Stoney Fart read something rather than just jump into attack it is obvious most of us think its bull as well. They are now firm believers that the unidentified cleaners took her. They think we have fallen for a tall story lol.

by **tigger** 20.05.13 17:09

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:If there IS such a thing as a couple, maybe known to the McCanns, who went into 5A to smooth a weeping / crying child, they certainly seem to have been able to silence her ...

The couple must have been known to Maddie too.
Can't have been strangers going in to soothe her one night only to return the next night to snatch her. Does not make sense at all.

Whole thing is made up on the basis of undisclosed witness(es) who saw a middle-age couple entering on the 2nd.
The crying was on the first and there is evidence in the form of a statement by Mrs. Fenn.
There is no evidence whatsoever about crying on the 2nd.

The crying episode came into the public domain (leaked) around end of August 2007.
The couple who 'had taken Madeleine' comes from Kate as from 3/5/07.

I'd like to know when exactly these witnesses felt it was of use to tell the police about seeing a middle-aged couple entering 5a.
According to Rachel Mampilly there was no crying on the 2nd.

If these witness statements are close to the 3rd/4th May 07, I could give some credence to them. Now it's just a compilation of two non-facts both of which have been in the public domain for nearly six years.

I hope it isn't the case that a suitable ending has to be found that will satisfy all parties?
Conclusion the couple were so taken with Maddie on the 2nd, that they (being childless and in need of a challenge) abducted her the following night?
Measures taken: the rest of the world will now look for a late middle aged couple with a child. But the circumstances surrounding them seem to be beneficial.
Entering to soothe the child, caring man and woman. So NOT one or two paedos.
Peace at winding down enquiry but keeping an eye out just in case.
Sleep well.

by **PeterMac** 20.05.13 17:09

And of course all the other Tapasniks who were dashing around doing their own half hourly checks had to go right past the McCann's apartment and would have heard the crying on both nights.
Wouldn't they ?
It is three people every half hour, in each direction.
Six passings of 5A, every half hour.
One every 5 minutes . . .

by Guest 20.05.13 17:16

We do have the statement of Kate McCann about Madeleine and Sean crying on 2nd May....

The possible missed chance came at breakfast on the day Madeleine vanished, when the little girl disconcerted her mother by asking: ‘Why didn’t you come when Sean and I cried last night?’

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

by Guest 20.05.13 17:21

Could that be read as: "Why didn't YOU come, when Sean and I cried"?

by Pershing36 20.05.13 17:24

tigger wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:If there IS such a thing as a couple, maybe known to the McCanns, who went into 5A to smooth a weeping / crying child, they certainly seem to have been able to silence her ...

The couple must have been known to Maddie too.
Can't have been strangers going in to soothe her one night only to return the next night to snatch her. Does not make sense at all.

Whole thing is made up on the basis of undisclosed witness(es) who saw a middle-age couple entering on the 2nd.
The crying was on the first and there is evidence in the form of a statement by Mrs. Fenn.
There is no evidence whatsoever about crying on the 2nd.

The crying episode came into the public domain (leaked) around end of August 2007.
The couple who 'had taken Madeleine' comes from Kate as from 3/5/07.

I'd like to know when exactly these witnesses felt it was of use to tell the police about seeing a middle-aged couple entering 5a.
According to Rachel Mampilly there was no crying on the 2nd.

If these witness statements are close to the 3rd/4th May 07, I could give some credence to them. Now it's just a compilation of two non-facts both of which have been in the public domain for nearly six years.

I hope it isn't the case that a suitable ending has to be found that will satisfy all parties?
Conclusion the couple were so taken with Maddie on the 2nd, that they (being childless and in need of a challenge) abducted her the following night?
Measures taken: the rest of the world will now look for a late middle aged couple with a child. But the circumstances surrounding them seem to be beneficial.
Entering to soothe the child, caring man and woman. So NOT one or two paedos.
Peace at winding down enquiry but keeping an eye out just in case.
Sleep well.

Agree absolutely. Put in layman's terms we can't/ are not allowed to find sh!t.

Best thing to do is let everyone think that although she has gone and we are clueless where, she is not with some gang of paedos but with an adoring couple. Everyone gets the best possible solution other than her return. Cue endless speculation and global hunts for this mysterious loving couple.

by Cheshire Cat 20.05.13 17:27

tigger wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:If there IS such a thing as a couple, maybe known to the McCanns, who went into 5A to smooth a weeping / crying child, they certainly seem to have been able to silence her ...

The couple must have been known to Maddie too.
Can't have been strangers going in to soothe her one night only to return the next night to snatch her. Does not make sense at all.

Whole thing is made up on the basis of undisclosed witness(es) who saw a middle-age couple entering on the 2nd.
The crying was on the first and there is evidence in the form of a statement by Mrs. Fenn.
There is no evidence whatsoever about crying on the 2nd.

The crying episode came into the public domain (leaked) around end of August 2007.
The couple who 'had taken Madeleine' comes from Kate as from 3/5/07.

I'd like to know when exactly these witnesses felt it was of use to tell the police about seeing a middle-aged couple entering 5a.
According to Rachel Mampilly there was no crying on the 2nd.

If these witness statements are close to the 3rd/4th May 07, I could give some credence to them. Now it's just a compilation of two non-facts both of which have been in the public domain for nearly six years.

I hope it isn't the case that a suitable ending has to be found that will satisfy all parties?
Conclusion the couple were so taken with Maddie on the 2nd, that they (being childless and in need of a challenge) abducted her the following night?
Measures taken: the rest of the world will now look for a late middle aged couple with a child. But the circumstances surrounding them seem to be beneficial.
Entering to soothe the child, caring man and woman. So NOT one or two paedos.
Peace at winding down enquiry but keeping an eye out just in case.
Sleep well.

I believe that this might well be the case and I agree that the "soothing couple" have been invented for the purpose you have described. The couple who have been interviewed by the Met appear to be the Moyes of Middlewich who from previous media interviews seem very much "on message" (as well as living only ten minutes away from Swettenham Hall). The crying happened on the 1st and it now looks as if history is being rewritten to make it the 2nd.

If this is the new theory then it has been blown to smithereens by the armchair detectives!

by Woofer 20.05.13 17:42

Or it reinforces the idea that Maddie was alive on the 2nd.

These 6 people in the white van - could they have been hired to do a `deep clean`? Cash in hand and a bit extra for their silence.

by ShuBob 20.05.13 17:48

Even if Maddie is found today, the McCanns and their friends still need to give a coherent version of events to support the prosecution case (assuming she was abducted).

by Smokeandmirrors 20.05.13 18:06

Woofer wrote:Or it reinforces the idea that Maddie was alive on the 2nd.

These 6 people in the white van - could they have been hired to do a `deep clean`? Cash in hand and a bit extra for their silence.

by Woofer 20.05.13 18:07

aiyoyo wrote: Could have been Rachel & Partner as according to her witness statement she had stayed in the Apt on Wednesday's night (2nd) ,went to bed at 9.00pm, but did not hear anything. From her perspective if Maddie was crying and she'd entered 5A to soothe her she would not have regarded that as unusual, so her "did not hear anything" could be referring to did not hear any strange noise or commotion. If Maddie was crying and Rachel happened to be in the next apt, she's bound to have heard the crying, plus if she knew that Maddie's parents were out for the night, then if she'd entered the apt to soothe Maddie it would make sense without having to alert reception.

Feasible as MO is going grey and could be seen as middle aged. But if true, its an important thing for the Oldfields to leave out of their statements.

Latest topics