Gerry's clothes

HelenMeg wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

Doug D wrote:And don't forget the 'disappearing toothbrushes' that logic, not evidence, dictates would probably have been used to scrub between the tiles

Yes ! I hadn't ever thought much about the lack of toothbrush.. but of course ! It is indeed a logical explanation - toothbrushes are great for those little crevices between tiles. They had nothing else to hand. Replacing the toothbrush from a local supermarket would have been a good idea - which tends to indicate to me that maybe the event took place later rather than sooner. Or maybe they tried to purchase a toothbrush replacement but ended up buying sunglasses.

-----------------------------------------------------
Or maybe they tried to purchase a toothbrush replacement but ended up buying sunglasses
--------------------------------------------------------------

I tried brushing my teeth with a pair of sunglasses!

Not very good, they don't 'bend' very much AND toothpaste keeps sliding off!

      

Yes, well now you mention it, when I tried shielding my eyes from the sun with my toothbrush - it was totally useless - wont make that mistake again 

But its little things like these that could help unravel the plot.

GM - " we better try and get a toothbrush from that supermarket - it might look odd if we only have 1 wee brush between three! "

KM - " come on then what you waiting for - lets be aving you - off to Batistas"

GM - " crap supermarket - no wee toothbrushes for little wee ones! "

KM - " Yes but what if they say they had a couple of english people ( sorry 1 english person and a wee scotsman) in looking for toothbrushes - wont it look off?"

GM - " you silly wee lass - that s why I bought the sunglasses .... now best make that clear in your bewk which you will be writing to distort the truth...."

HelenMeg wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

Doug D wrote:And don't forget the 'disappearing toothbrushes' that logic, not evidence, dictates would probably have been used to scrub between the tiles

Yes ! I hadn't ever thought much about the lack of toothbrush.. but of course ! It is indeed a logical explanation - toothbrushes are great for those little crevices between tiles. They had nothing else to hand. Replacing the toothbrush from a local supermarket would have been a good idea - which tends to indicate to me that maybe the event took place later rather than sooner. Or maybe they tried to purchase a toothbrush replacement but ended up buying sunglasses.

-----------------------------------------------------
Or maybe they tried to purchase a toothbrush replacement but ended up buying sunglasses
--------------------------------------------------------------

I tried brushing my teeth with a pair of sunglasses!

Not very good, they don't 'bend' very much AND toothpaste keeps sliding off!

      

Yes, well now you mention it, when I tried shielding my eyes from the sun with my toothbrush - it was totally useless - wont make that mistake again 

But its little things like these that could help unravel the plot.

GM - " we better try and get a toothbrush from that supermarket - it might look odd if we only have 1 wee brush between three! "

KM - " come on then what you waiting for - lets be aving you - off to Batistas"

GM - " crap supermarket - no wee toothbrushes for little wee ones! "

KM - " Yes but what if they say they had a couple of english people ( sorry 1 english person and a wee scotsman) in looking for toothbrushes - wont it look off?"

GM - " you silly wee lass - that s why I bought the sunglasses .... now best make that clear in your bewk which you will be writing to distort the truth...."

The buying of the sunglasses was at "sunglasses corner" very well documented in exhibit KH1, on the 1st May 2007.

dantezebu wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

Doug D wrote:And don't forget the 'disappearing toothbrushes' that logic, not evidence, dictates would probably have been used to scrub between the tiles

Yes ! I hadn't ever thought much about the lack of toothbrush.. but of course ! It is indeed a logical explanation - toothbrushes are great for those little crevices between tiles. They had nothing else to hand. Replacing the toothbrush from a local supermarket would have been a good idea - which tends to indicate to me that maybe the event took place later rather than sooner. Or maybe they tried to purchase a toothbrush replacement but ended up buying sunglasses.

-----------------------------------------------------
Or maybe they tried to purchase a toothbrush replacement but ended up buying sunglasses
--------------------------------------------------------------

I tried brushing my teeth with a pair of sunglasses!

Not very good, they don't 'bend' very much AND toothpaste keeps sliding off!

      

Yes, well now you mention it, when I tried shielding my eyes from the sun with my toothbrush - it was totally useless - wont make that mistake again 

But its little things like these that could help unravel the plot.

GM - " we better try and get a toothbrush from that supermarket - it might look odd if we only have 1 wee brush between three! "

KM - " come on then what you waiting for - lets be aving you - off to Batistas"

GM - " crap supermarket - no wee toothbrushes for little wee ones! "

KM - " Yes but what if they say they had a couple of english people ( sorry 1 english person and a wee scotsman) in looking for toothbrushes - wont it look off?"

GM - " you silly wee lass - that s why I bought the sunglasses .... now best make that clear in your bewk which you will be writing to distort the truth...."

The buying of the sunglasses was at "sunglasses corner" very well documented in exhibit KH1, on the 1st May 2007.

Yes sorry - for going off at a tangent... but i wonder if sunglasses corner also sells other things tat a tourist may need at short notice... such as toothbrushes.
Anyway, apologies to one and all for going off at a tangent - did not mean to disrupt especially as this is an excellent thread.

I hope all the Scottish people that frequent this forum enjoy all the 'wee scotsman' banter.

Did Kate in her book make any reference or try and explain away the fact that there was ONLY 1 TOOTHBRUSH between 3 children?

I have read the book of tripe a long time ago but can't recall off the top of my head.

ETA - or was it 1 toothbrush between all 5?

dantezebu wrote:
The buying of the sunglasses was at "sunglasses corner" very well documented in exhibit KH1, on the 1st May 2007.

And here is the weather for 1st May.  Clearly an urgent need to buy sunglasses !

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Andrew77R wrote:Did Kate in her book make any reference or try and explain away the fact that there was ONLY 1 TOOTHBRUSH between 3 children?

I have read the book of tripe a long time ago but can't recall off the top of my head.

ETA - or was it 1 toothbrush between all 5?

I've only recently waded through Exhibit KH1, Andrew, and there's no mention of the family toothbrush which, as far as I recall, was allegedly shared by the parents and their 3 children.

Clocker wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

Doug D wrote:And don't forget the 'disappearing toothbrushes' that logic, not evidence, dictates would probably have been used to scrub between the tiles

Yes ! I hadn't ever thought much about the lack of toothbrush.. but of course ! It is indeed a logical explanation - toothbrushes are great for those little crevices between tiles. They had nothing else to hand. Replacing the toothbrush from a local supermarket would have been a good idea - which tends to indicate to me that maybe the event took place later rather than sooner. Or maybe they tried to purchase a toothbrush replacement but ended up buying sunglasses.

The one toothbrush has always baffled me, never believed they shared just the one. That's a good observation above and the highlighted part made me chuckle. There had to be a reason behind KM mentioning the purchase of the sunglasses.

A mental exercise: put yourself in Kate's shoes - how do you explain why are there 3 kids and one toothbrush?

1. I caught one of the kids throwing them out of the window and only managed to save one.

2. I caught one of the kids dropping them down the toilet and only managed to save one.

3. The toothbrush beaker was knocked over and two brushes landed on the floor.

In each of these cases, the dirty brushes were thrown away but the bin has been emptied since then and I haven't got round to buying replacements because it's my holiday too.

4. The abductor intended to treat Madeleine like a princess so it stands to reason that he would have taken her toothbrush and, not knowing which of the girly toothbrushes was hers, took them both.

In situations 1,2 & 3 I'd rather wait until I'd bought fresh brushes than making the kids share but that's just me. I don't think I'd ever use the "they shared a toothbrush" explanation because that's just nasty.

I think buying sunglasses gets a mention in Exhibit KH1, because Gerry is wearing sunglasses in the "Last Picture". IMO [and other members' opinion too] this picture was taken on arrival day or on the Sunday. Stating that Gerry had to buy sunglasses on May 1, though, as well as drawing attention to the TIME instead of the DATE is to undermine possible theories, that the "last picture" could have been taken earlier ...

If toothbrushes were used to clean, especially the gaps in between tiles, wouldn't that indicate that they used the first things they could lay their hands on, and therefore were possibly in a hurry and had no alternative?

ultimaThule wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:Did Kate in her book make any reference or try and explain away the fact that there was ONLY 1 TOOTHBRUSH between 3 children?

I have read the book of tripe a long time ago but can't recall off the top of my head.

ETA - or was it 1 toothbrush between all 5?

I've only recently waded through Exhibit KH1, Andrew, and there's no mention of the family toothbrush which, as far as I recall, was allegedly shared by the parents and their 3 children.

Thanks UT.

Has any reference been made ever on any interview etc regarding this bizarre situation of the 1 toothbrush.

Have they ever been asked outright 'so why did you only have 1 toothbrush between the family?'

Did GA make any sort of comment about it in his book at all?

Any documentation in the PJ files regards to it?

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
I believe that the alarm was raised before anyone knew that she was dead.  In my opinion that alarm was raised at about 9:35pm, and they found Maddie's body at about 9:45pm - 9:50pm, just as an official search was about to start.

But how does that work ?
Kate swore blind she looked everywhere, inside the cupboard etc couldn't find her and immediately she knew they'd taken her.

Are you saying that my hypothesis is invalid because of something Kate said?  I'm not sure that I understand.

Oh, OK.......?

You have three sedated children, you see one missing from bed, would you not turn on the lights to look everywhere literally everywhere first before storming down the stairs to the restaurant.....?

How to explain the unslept -in-bed?
Empty of beddings cots ?
Dogs signal the inside of the cupboard?

The worker whose statement you relied on gave the time he saw Gerry searching at the pool area as 9.30 -10pm
In that case, what time did :
Kate raise the alarm ? 9.35 you said
Fly down the stairs to Tapas....?
Return with the group including Gerry to the apt....?
Who discovered Maddie? 9.45-9.50 you said

Where was she lying when they discovered her ?
Behind the sofa ?
How did she end up there if sofa was against the wall?
If it was not against the wall, how did Kate miss spotting her earlier?

How can Gerry be seen in two places at the same time ie Pool area and the back alley?

The worker who saw him (9.30 to 10pm pool area) said he alerted colleagues, meaning a growing search team adding to that those guests and staff of Tapas Restaurant disturbed by the commotion of a screaming Kate flying towards them and a flurry of ensuing upheaval activities were searching presumably, how did Gerry, given the search going on at the time, manage to carry his dead child out of the apt and reaching the Alley without being detected/seen?

More pertinently, why would he take that kind of risk right under the nose of the search party knowing people were swimming about the place looking for an abductor ?

Aiyoyo''.. screaming Kate...''

We don't KNOW it was Kate who screamed but logic tells us that it was her who was heard by the Tapas worker, a sound which obviously chilled him.

My point is, WHY THEN?


Why not when you first discover her missing?
Why not from the balcony to alert your friends and husband?(Putting aside the fact that you leave the two babies behind when you run to tell them)
Why not when you run back again and realise 'yes ,she is missing'?'
Because it sounds like the friends were very close when she gave this blood-curdling scream . So why then?

To answer your questions I'll refer to actual statements from independent witnesses.

aiyoyo wrote:
Oh, OK.......?

You have three sedated children, you see one missing from bed, would you not turn on the lights to look everywhere literally everywhere first before storming down the stairs to the restaurant.....?

Ok, let's put the 'storming down the stairs to the restaurant' to bed.  What is your source for this?  The statements of the Tapas 9?  Show me an independent witness statement referencing this event.

Waiters and waitresses are usually well aware of what is going in their restaurant during the evening.  I would suggest that a customer running into the Tapas screaming would not go unnoticed.

SVETLANA STARIKOVA VITORINO (kitchen assistant):

'Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.'

JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (waiter):

'The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
'- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;'

From these accounts it would appear that Gerry was away from the table for some significant amount of time, perhaps half an hour.  Immediately on his return, Kate goes to 5A, and after 'a few moments', everyone left except for Dianne Webster.

Where does Kate running screaming into the Tapas fit into these accounts?

aiyoyo wrote:
How to explain the unslept -in-bed?
Empty of beddings cots ?
Dogs signal the inside of the cupboard?

Perhaps Maddie didn't sleep in her bed, she could have been put in the parents' bedroom.  In my opinion it is more difficult to explain why they didn't mess up the bed if the whole event was fake and they had plenty of time to set the stage.

aiyoyo wrote:
The worker whose statement you relied on gave the time he saw Gerry searching at the pool area as 9.30 -10pm
In that case, what time did :
Kate raise the alarm ? 9.35 you said

Why ask the question if you have the answer already, which you've even added after your question?  Shortly (or 'a few moments') after 9:30 is my answer.  She possibly phoned someone at the Tapas on her mobile.  Seems more likely than running to the Tapas screaming, which no independent witness can confirm actually happened.

aiyoyo wrote:
Fly down the stairs to Tapas....?

As I said, no independent witness can confirm that this ever happened.  Given the number of staff at the Tapas, it seems very unlikely that it did happen.

aiyoyo wrote:
Return with the group including Gerry to the apt....?

I refer you to the witness statements above.  The entire group except for Dianne Webster left for the apartment a few moments after Kate left.

aiyoyo wrote:
Who discovered Maddie? 9.45-9.50 you said
Where was she lying when they discovered her ?
Behind the sofa ?

I cannot claim to have psychic powers, so the answer is I don't know for certain.  My intuition tells me that Jane Tanner found Maddie behind the couch, and carried her into the bedroom - she did say 'I carried her...' in that Panorama documentary.  Kate was probably immediately alerted, and gave out the scream that was heard by J.R.Salcedas.

aiyoyo wrote:
How did she end up there if sofa was against the wall?

Evidence for the sofa being against the wall at this point please.  It was against the wall later when the police arrived.

aiyoyo wrote:
If it was not against the wall, how did Kate miss spotting her earlier?

She was a little 'under the influence'?  From the photos of 5A that I've seen, you could easily miss a child lying behind the couch if you didn't think to look there.

aiyoyo wrote:
How can Gerry be seen in two places at the same time ie Pool area and the back alley?

Back alley?  Do you mean the Smithman sighting?  Who said they saw Gerry at 9:55pm?  Gerry obviously couldn't be in two places at once.  I've never claimed that he was.

aiyoyo wrote:
The worker who saw him (9.30 to 10pm pool area) said he alerted colleagues, meaning a growing search team adding to that those guests and staff of Tapas Restaurant disturbed by the commotion of a screaming Kate flying towards them and a flurry of ensuing upheaval activities were searching presumably, how did Gerry, given the search going on at the time, manage to carry his dead child out of the apt and reaching the Alley without being detected/seen?

The account says that the search team was gathering at the Ocean Club entrance.  All you have to do is avoid that area.

aiyoyo wrote:
More pertinently, why would he take that kind of risk right under the nose of the search party knowing people were swimming about the place looking for an abductor ?

Perhaps he was afraid of the inevitable autopsy.  You either own up that your daughter is actually dead and go for the consequences, or you try to avoid the consequences.  What risk?  There's no extra risk.  There must have been a reason to hide the body.  There are two outcomes - the body is found, or the body is not found.  Being caught by a search party - and bearing in mind Gerry could just say that he had just found the body - and telling the truth both equate to 'the body is found', so no extra risk.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:To answer your questions I'll refer to actual statements from independent witnesses.

aiyoyo wrote:
Oh, OK.......?

You have three sedated children, you see one missing from bed, would you not turn on the lights to look everywhere literally everywhere first before storming down the stairs to the restaurant.....?

Ok, let's put the 'storming down the stairs to the restaurant' to bed.  What is your source for this?  The statements of the Tapas 9?  Show me an independent witness statement referencing this event.

Waiters and waitresses are usually well aware of what is going in their restaurant during the evening.  I would suggest that a customer running into the Tapas screaming would not go unnoticed.

SVETLANA STARIKOVA VITORINO (kitchen assistant):

'Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.'

JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (waiter):

'The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
'- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;'

From these accounts it would appear that Gerry was away from the table for some significant amount of time, perhaps half an hour.  Immediately on his return, Kate goes to 5A, and after 'a few moments', everyone left except for Dianne Webster.

Where does Kate running screaming into the Tapas fit into these accounts?

aiyoyo wrote:
How to explain the unslept -in-bed?
Empty of beddings cots ?
Dogs signal the inside of the cupboard?

Perhaps Maddie didn't sleep in her bed, she could have been put in the parents' bedroom.  In my opinion it is more difficult to explain why they didn't mess up the bed if the whole event was fake and they had plenty of time to set the stage.

aiyoyo wrote:
The worker whose statement you relied on gave the time he saw Gerry searching at the pool area as 9.30 -10pm
In that case, what time did :
Kate raise the alarm ? 9.35 you said

Why ask the question if you have the answer already, which you've even added after your question?  Shortly (or 'a few moments') after 9:30 is my answer.  She possibly phoned someone at the Tapas on her mobile.  Seems more likely than running to the Tapas screaming, which no independent witness can confirm actually happened.

aiyoyo wrote:
Fly down the stairs to Tapas....?

As I said, no independent witness can confirm that this ever happened.  Given the number of staff at the Tapas, it seems very unlikely that it did happen.

aiyoyo wrote:
Return with the group including Gerry to the apt....?

I refer you to the witness statements above.  The entire group except for Dianne Webster left for the apartment a few moments after Kate left.

aiyoyo wrote:
Who discovered Maddie? 9.45-9.50 you said
Where was she lying when they discovered her ?
Behind the sofa ?

I cannot claim to have psychic powers, so the answer is I don't know for certain.  My intuition tells me that Jane Tanner found Maddie behind the couch, and carried her into the bedroom - she did say 'I carried her...' in that Panorama documentary.  Kate was probably immediately alerted, and gave out the scream that was heard by J.R.Salcedas.

aiyoyo wrote:
How did she end up there if sofa was against the wall?

Evidence for the sofa being against the wall at this point please.  It was against the wall later when the police arrived.

aiyoyo wrote:
If it was not against the wall, how did Kate miss spotting her earlier?

She was a little 'under the influence'?  From the photos of 5A that I've seen, you could easily miss a child lying behind the couch if you didn't think to look there.

aiyoyo wrote:
How can Gerry be seen in two places at the same time ie Pool area and the back alley?

Back alley?  Do you mean the Smithman sighting?  Who said they saw Gerry at 9:55pm?  Gerry obviously couldn't be in two places at once.  I've never claimed that he was.

aiyoyo wrote:
The worker who saw him (9.30 to 10pm pool area) said he alerted colleagues, meaning a growing search team adding to that those guests and staff of Tapas Restaurant disturbed by the commotion of a screaming Kate flying towards them and a flurry of ensuing upheaval activities were searching presumably, how did Gerry, given the search going on at the time, manage to carry his dead child out of the apt and reaching the Alley without being detected/seen?

The account says that the search team was gathering at the Ocean Club entrance.  All you have to do is avoid that area.

aiyoyo wrote:
More pertinently, why would he take that kind of risk right under the nose of the search party knowing people were swimming about the place looking for an abductor ?

Perhaps he was afraid of the inevitable autopsy.  You either own up that your daughter is actually dead and go for the consequences, or you try to avoid the consequences.  What risk?  There's no extra risk.  There must have been a reason to hide the body.  There are two outcomes - the body is found, or the body is not found.  Being caught by a search party - and bearing in mind Gerry could just say that he had just found the body - and telling the truth both equate to 'the body is found', so no extra risk.

It seems in your scenario you accept the dog indications for the sofa area. Are you discounting the alert by the wardrobe and outside?

dantezebu wrote:
It seems in your scenario you accept the dog indications for the sofa area. Are you discounting the alert by the wardrobe and outside?

No, read my post again please.  Of course I accept the dog indications.  It forms a major part of my hypothesis. I said that somebody carried the body from behind the sofa where it was found, into the parents' bedroom to the area that the dogs indicated.

The outside indication wasn't as certain as the inside ones - just a 'maybe, not sure', if I recall correctly.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

dantezebu wrote:
It seems in your scenario you accept the dog indications for the sofa area. Are you discounting the alert by the wardrobe and outside?

No, read my post again please.  Of course I accept the dog indications.  It forms a major part of my hypothesis. I said that somebody carried the body from behind the sofa where it was found, into the parents' bedroom to the area that the dogs indicated.

The outside indication wasn't as certain as the inside ones - just a 'maybe, not sure', if I recall correctly.

WLBTS "I cannot claim to have psychic powers, so the answer is I don't know for certain. My intuition tells me that Jane Tanner found Maddie behind the couch, and carried her into the bedroom - she did say 'I carried her...' in that Panorama documentary. Kate was probably immediately alerted, and gave out the scream that was heard by J.R.Salcedas."

Ok so JT found her and but her on the floor by the wardrobe. She didn't put her on the bed. JT's not a doctor and probably has had little experience of death but she must have been certain that a) she was dead and b) that the MCs would want to hide her body. She must be psychic.
You still haven't explained when the cleaning was done. The quick wipe and cover with a sofa doesn't fit with the evidence.

dantezebu wrote:
WLBTS "I cannot claim to have psychic powers, so the answer is I don't know for certain.  My intuition tells me that Jane Tanner found Maddie behind the couch, and carried her into the bedroom - she did say 'I carried her...' in that Panorama documentary.  Kate was probably immediately alerted, and gave out the scream that was heard by J.R.Salcedas."

Ok so JT found her and but her on the floor by the wardrobe. She didn't put her on the bed. JT's not a doctor and probably has had little experience of death but she must have been certain that a) she was dead and b) that the MCs would want to hide her body. She must be psychic.
You still haven't explained when the cleaning was done. The quick wipe and cover with a sofa doesn't fit with the evidence.

I said that JT was just a guess, and that my answer is that I don't know who moved the body to the bedroom.  I don't see how it makes any difference to my theory.

As to the evidence of cleaning - give me the evidence.  I've looked at the evidence.  Give me evidence that makes a 'quick wipe and cover with a sofa' not possible.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

dantezebu wrote:
WLBTS "I cannot claim to have psychic powers, so the answer is I don't know for certain.  My intuition tells me that Jane Tanner found Maddie behind the couch, and carried her into the bedroom - she did say 'I carried her...' in that Panorama documentary.  Kate was probably immediately alerted, and gave out the scream that was heard by J.R.Salcedas."

Ok so JT found her and but her on the floor by the wardrobe. She didn't put her on the bed. JT's not a doctor and probably has had little experience of death but she must have been certain that a) she was dead and b) that the MCs would want to hide her body. She must be psychic.
You still haven't explained when the cleaning was done. The quick wipe and cover with a sofa doesn't fit with the evidence.

What's your point?  I said that JT was just a guess, and that my answer is that I don't know who moved the body to the bedroom.  I don't see how it makes any difference to my theory, it feels like nit-picking to me.

As to the evidence of cleaning - give me the evidence.  I've looked at the evidence.  Give me evidence that makes a 'quick wipe and cover with a sofa' not possible.

If you are going to post and push a theory you can expect it to be questioned. It's not nit-picking. It's not challenging. It's not being argumentative. It is trying to take the best of one persons ideas and fit it to ALL the evidence.
Don't get so defensive.
About the cleaning see my earlier post.

dantezebu wrote:
If you are going to post and push a theory you can expect it to be questioned. It's not nit-picking. It's not challenging. It's not being argumentative. It is trying to take the best of one persons ideas and fit it to ALL the evidence.
Don't get so defensive.
About the cleaning see my earlier post.

Sorry about that :)

From your earlier posts, all I could find was this statement from yourself:

dantezebu wrote:
That is aside from the cleaning up, the bleaching of the floor with time for it to dry and for the smell to go, actually having bleach in the apartment, the washing of the curtains, the opening of the window, the opening of the shutters, the making of the bed, the deleting of phone records etc.

What is the evidence that points at all of this having been done before just after 11pm when the police arrived?
Was the window open?
Were the shutters open?
What would be the point of making the bed?
Phone records can be deleted very quickly.

Andrew77R wrote:@JRob.

Always thoroughly enjoy reading your detailed analogies and in depth reasoning's of your posts.

I was unfamiliar with the Elizabeth Smart case until i did a bit of background reading on it. I believe it was purported on another thread at some point today.

A agree that there are a lot of similarities, however i think the Mccann's drew inspiration from this case AFTER the 3rd of May and IMO not prior. 

Yes, that i can see that there are certain things that can hold some weight in that theory but to me it's over complicating things.

I just cant believe that the Mccann's and the rest of the tapas group went away on holiday together with a pre planned abduction / kidnapping going to be carried out of a near 4 year old girl.

However, i do believe that during the aftermath then similarities of that particular case were taken. 

IMO obviously.

Thanks! Well, I agree it seems pretty bonkers but there are quite a few indicators of pre-planning. The speed with which the fund was set up and so on. The speed with which Gerry involved the media. The fact that the McCanns had a set 'abduction by stranger' script which they will not deviate from. The clairvoyant friend who flies out to help, having changed her company name to incorporate helping to find missing children PRIOR to Madeleine's alleged abduction (a very weird coincident, perhaps?) 

But, if there was a degree of pre-planning I do not think all of the group would have been 'in on it'. Maybe just the McCanns, maybe a couple of the other 'key players' who have been so helpful in providing the McCann's alibis.

I think the others who helped provide alibis and so on would have thought they were covering up a tragic accident and probably thought: 'there but for the grace of God'.

I think it is remarkably strange that there are no photos or no footage of Madeleine at all on that holiday, apart from that footage of her boarding the plane. You would expect that friends to have taken photos Madeleine and Ella for instance - even other holiday makers might have snapped Madeleine in a group activity alongside their own children.

The two photos that Gerry produced WEEKS after Madeleine 'disappeared' are, imo, fake. And how come Kate and/or Russell do not take a single photo of Madeleine, find the time to video-record another holiday-maker's (Nigel) child playing mini-tennis. And Kate and Russell give conflicting accounts of this incident. Russell's account of this in his police statement is fishy, imo.

This is all beyond peculiar. It is downright suspicious.

What the HELL was going on that week? 

Then consider the other children who were there as part of the group. Ella was the same age as Madeleine. She surely would have been a kEY WITNESS to the whereabouts of Madeleine that week. If they had both been playing mini-tennis on Tuesday, say as friends they could easily have been playing against each other. And on Thursday Madeleine is supposed to have gone out boating with her kids' club. Ella would have been there and no doubt the two of them would have wanted to share the experience - as nearly four year olds do - with a special friend. I remember having children of this age - they love to share things with a friend.

Then factor in that other holiday-makers were being asked to send in their photos of their own holidays that week to Team McCann and their acolytes. Now, why would that be, I wonder?? So Team McCann and friends can scrutinize who was there and when, perhaps? Plus find photos of the other Tapas children and establish who they were with? Plus establish whether anyone had footage of the entire kids' club group - complete with all the children which should obviously include Madeleine?

And why would Hodge's nephew respond to questions (from Tony Bennett?) that he had a photograph of his own children with Madeleine in the background (taken, on the final day?) 

Little bit of a 'hot potato' the whole photograph business.

And why would Kate and Russell be taking video-footage of a child playing mini-tennis that was not their own child?

I reckon Team McCann were anxious to get hold of all the evidence they could that might incriminate their own version of what Madeleine was doing on that holiday. 

Given all of the above (and there are many other red flags apart from these) I am pretty certain that *something* happened to Madeleine either on Sunday or Monday. *Something* that was serious enough for the team to concoct an elaborate and complicated series of alibis for practically the entire week. 

Complete madness the whole thing, imo.

Complete madness, indeed, j.rob, but I'm convinced there was a method to the madness and I agree there is much to indicate that the 'abduction' was pre-planned and the plan may have been formulated some considerable time before 'A Day', or 'A Night' as the case may be.

I can't help thinking that the hour and a quarter of escalating crying (as heard by neighbour Mrs Fenn) coming from the McCann apartment on Monday evening that ended abruptly at around 11.30pm when Mrs Fenn heard the patio doors being opened may be one of the 'keys' to unlocking the 'mystery'.

This is an incredibly long time for a child of nearly four to be crying at night-time. And what is even more suspicious is that the crying escalated. 

Why? What was going on? Something was happening (or not happening) that was deeply upsetting a child in the McCann apartment that evening. And making the child cry out 'Daddy'. 

Ugh.

What a horrible group of people they all are, imo. Horrible.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

dantezebu wrote:
It seems in your scenario you accept the dog indications for the sofa area. Are you discounting the alert by the wardrobe and outside?

No, read my post again please.  Of course I accept the dog indications.  It forms a major part of my hypothesis. I said that somebody carried the body from behind the sofa where it was found, into the parents' bedroom to the area that the dogs indicated.

The outside indication wasn't as certain as the inside ones - just a 'maybe, not sure', if I recall correctly.

I dont think that is correct - your suggestion that the outside indication was not as certain as the inside ones. The dogs indicate or they dont - simple as that . There is the scent they are trained to find - or there is not.  No 'maybe's.