Re: Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

by StraightThinking 28.10.13 19:22

Regarding the Smithman sighting at 21.55, coincidentally this is the exact time when R O'B returned to the Tapas table according to the sticker book timeline, thus giving the T9 a joint alibi, ie they were all together round the table and can vouch for one another

However, independent witnesses say the table was empty by 21.40, which would give none of them an alibi

by Hicks 28.10.13 20:40

StraightThinking wrote:Regarding the Smithman sighting at 21.55, coincidentally this is the exact time when R O'B returned to the Tapas table according to the sticker book timeline, thus giving the T9 a joint alibi, ie they were all together round the table and can vouch for one another

However, independent witnesses say the table was empty by 21.40, which would give none of them an alibi

I was thinking earlier, we have only really focused on the timeline BEFORE Madeleine went missing. What about the time just after, where was GM then?
What about the two men seen arguing at 11.00pm that night, as described on CW?

The Smithman may just have nipped back AFTER the initial commotion to where he was originally seen going, but with help this time.

GM deleted a call to his wife @23.17 (not long after the two men were seen arguing) in fact, he deleted four further calls to her that night.

by StraightThinking 28.10.13 21:18

Hicks wrote:I was thinking earlier, we have only really focused on the timeline BEFORE Madeleine went missing. What about the time just after

M was actually missing by 21.20 according to the executive chef who lived nearby, so there are two interesting periods:

21.20-21.40, when she was missing but the Tapas table was occupied
21.40-22.00, when the Tapas table was occupied according to the sticker book timeline, but probably not in reality

by Guest 28.10.13 22:14

susible wrote:I'm also reluctant to believe that the death occurred earlier, because the abduction charade was such a shambles, I honestly think that if they'd had more time to plan it, there wouldn't have been the inconsistencies, problematic timelines etc

Also Snr Amaral's thesis places the 3rd as being the day of the potential accident, due to the independent witnesses at the creche etc, and whilst I agree that the creche records were a bit of a disaster and the nannies didn't really know who their charges were, allowing for a substitute child in the creche, that would have been a very risky strategy had one of the nannies realised that the child signed in as Madeleine, was not her at all. And of course, children of that age group can be quite vocal, so could easily say my name is not Madeleine etc, whereas a much younger child would not be able to, but the age group for Madeleine would easily be able to self-identify.

And of course there was the 9.30 -9.40 hullaballoo witnessed by the Carpenters and the tapas staff who notices that the group had all left the table except for DW.

Whilst I realise that this does not leave much time for the plan to be acted out, I have always thought that the entire sequence of events was a result of a panic reaction, which would certainly account for the inconsistencies in the tapas groups statements and timelines and Gerry inadvertently being seen by the Smiths as he frantically tried to spirit his daughter away from the apartment.

And now we know that the McCanns tried to bury the Smith sighting, I think that probably gives a good indication that Smith did see Gerry that 3night.

It is my (of course uncorroborrated) belief that something like this happened. To me the whole thing was not premeditated because the behaviours of the 9 are, in my opinion, clearly those of panic and unplanned damage limitation. I believe her body was discovered around 9.15 to 9.30, there would have followed a period of attempted resuscitation, then, as the full horror of what had happened and the implications for all involved dawned, Gerry fled the flat with Maddie to get her away from the scene. I believe this to be a temporary solution while the flat was made good and they started to compose their stories and timelines, and Madelaine would be removed in the early hours of the following morning to a more secure place. The Smith sighting took place, around 9.50, 9.55 and on Gerry's return to the complex shortly after 10 the 'alarm' was 'raised'.

All my own speculation, of course.

by Guest 28.10.13 22:34

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Stewie wrote:
I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found. In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....
The cadaver ‘odour’ needs time to mature before the dogs can indicate, it is generally thought this takes 1 ½ to 2 hours before the dogs can signal. The resuscitation element is interesting if we remember back to the radio interview Jane Tanner did where she let slip that if there was an accident there were plenty doctors available to resuscitate her (all volunteered not specifically asked about).

I also think Stewie has this about right - it would account for the places where the scent was found. However, I also understood, like Phooey, that a cadaver had to be a couple of hours old before the dog could detect the smell. This would not fit with the time I believe she may have died, between 8.30 when the McCanns went out and around 9.15 when I believe she may have been found.

Tonight I found this report, though, which shows dogs can detect the presence of a body just 10 minutes after death occurred:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html

Just me guessing, again, of course.

by Guest 28.10.13 22:36

Dee Coy wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Stewie wrote:
I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found. In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....
The cadaver ‘odour’ needs time to mature before the dogs can indicate, it is generally thought this takes 1 ½ to 2 hours before the dogs can signal. The resuscitation element is interesting if we remember back to the radio interview Jane Tanner did where she let slip that if there was an accident there were plenty doctors available to resuscitate her (all volunteered not specifically asked about).
I also think Stewie has this about right - it would account for the places where the scent was found. However, I also understood, like Phooey, that a cadaver had to be a couple of hours old before the dog could detect the smell. This would not fit with the time I believe she may have died, between 8.30 when the McCanns went out and around 9.15 when I believe she may have been found.

Tonight I found this report, though, which shows dogs can detect the presence of a body just 10 minutes after death occurred:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html

Yes, I have seen articles re them being able to sniff cadaver scent as early as 10 mins.

by Woofer 28.10.13 22:47

Hicks wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:Regarding the Smithman sighting at 21.55, coincidentally this is the exact time when R O'B returned to the Tapas table according to the sticker book timeline, thus giving the T9 a joint alibi, ie they were all together round the table and can vouch for one another

However, independent witnesses say the table was empty by 21.40, which would give none of them an alibi
I was thinking earlier, we have only really focused on the timeline BEFORE Madeleine went missing. What about the time just after, where was GM then?
What about the two men seen arguing at 11.00pm that night, as described on CW?

The Smithman may just have nipped back AFTER the initial commotion to where he was originally seen going, but with help this time.

GM deleted a call to his wife @23.17 (not long after the two men were seen arguing) in fact, he deleted four further calls to her that night.

We know he was on his balcony at 10.30 because Pamela Fenn spoke to him. He told her a little girl had been abducted. She asked if she could help by using her phone to call the police and he said they had already been called.

by Hongkong Phooey 28.10.13 23:55

candyfloss wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Stewie wrote:
I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found. In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....
The cadaver ‘odour’ needs time to mature before the dogs can indicate, it is generally thought this takes 1 ½ to 2 hours before the dogs can signal. The resuscitation element is interesting if we remember back to the radio interview Jane Tanner did where she let slip that if there was an accident there were plenty doctors available to resuscitate her (all volunteered not specifically asked about).
I also think Stewie has this about right - it would account for the places where the scent was found. However, I also understood, like Phooey, that a cadaver had to be a couple of hours old before the dog could detect the smell. This would not fit with the time I believe she may have died, between 8.30 when the McCanns went out and around 9.15 when I believe she may have been found.

Tonight I found this report, though, which shows dogs can detect the presence of a body just 10 minutes after death occurred:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html
Yes, I have seen articles re them being able to sniff cadaver scent as early as 10 mins.

I don't think that article was stating 'as early as 10 minutes', my take was that the body was up to 3 hours deceased but had been in contact with the carpet squares for 10 minutes and the dog signals were the high percentage (98)

by Guest 29.10.13 0:43

You're right, Phooey, reading it again the exposure of the sample to the corpse was 10 minutes. The body was within 3 hours of being dead.

This raises an important question. What is the minimum delay after death occurs before a dog could detect the death smell? Did you say you'd seen reports, Candyfloss? This would be important to establish how long a body could have potentially have been in the flat and/or raises the question if it may have been brought back to the flat after the initial search.

by DurhamGuy1967 29.10.13 3:33

Hicks wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:Regarding the Smithman sighting at 21.55, coincidentally this is the exact time when R O'B returned to the Tapas table according to the sticker book timeline, thus giving the T9 a joint alibi, ie they were all together round the table and can vouch for one another

However, independent witnesses say the table was empty by 21.40, which would give none of them an alibi
I was thinking earlier, we have only really focused on the timeline BEFORE Madeleine went missing. What about the time just after, where was GM then?
What about the two men seen arguing at 11.00pm that night, as described on CW?

The Smithman may just have nipped back AFTER the initial commotion to where he was originally seen going, but with help this time.

GM deleted a call to his wife @23.17 (not long after the two men were seen arguing) in fact, he deleted four further calls to her that night.

I wondered this. He hid the body but realising he was seen and it could direct the search in this area return in the middle of the night move it somewhere in totally different direction to a much better and more thought out hiding place.

by DurhamGuy1967 29.10.13 3:47

Dee Coy wrote:You're right, Phooey, reading it again the exposure of the sample to the corpse was 10 minutes. The body was within 3 hours of being dead.

This raises an important question. What is the minimum delay after death occurs before a dog could detect the death smell? Did you say you'd seen reports, Candyfloss? This would be important to establish how long a body could have potentially have been in the flat and/or raises the question if it may have been brought back to the flat after the initial search.

Have you a source for the time for the cadaver odour to appear. It seems Keela is pretty special and at the edge of new knowledge on this front. There maybe only by Keela's handler and close colleagues that know the times for sure.

DurhamGuy1967
Posts: 15
Join date: 2013-10-20

by Joss 29.10.13 4:20

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:You're right, Phooey, reading it again the exposure of the sample to the corpse was 10 minutes. The body was within 3 hours of being dead.

This raises an important question. What is the minimum delay after death occurs before a dog could detect the death smell? Did you say you'd seen reports, Candyfloss? This would be important to establish how long a body could have potentially have been in the flat and/or raises the question if it may have been brought back to the flat after the initial search.
Have you a source for the time for the cadaver odour to appear. It seems Keela is pretty special and at the edge of new knowledge on this front. There maybe only by Keela's handler and close colleagues that know the times for sure.

DurhamGuy1967
Posts: 15
Join date: 2013-10-20

This is an Interesting article you might find helpful to your question:
The CSI death dogs: Sniffing out the truth behind the crime-scene canines

One of the questions surrounding human cadaver dogs is how soon after death they can recognise a corpse, and how long a "fresh" corpse must remain in one place for a dog to detect that it has been there. In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.
Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation.
http://www.biologycorner.com/anatomy/senses/crimedogs.html

by AB1 29.10.13 4:38

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:You're right, Phooey, reading it again the exposure of the sample to the corpse was 10 minutes. The body was within 3 hours of being dead.

This raises an important question. What is the minimum delay after death occurs before a dog could detect the death smell? Did you say you'd seen reports, Candyfloss? This would be important to establish how long a body could have potentially have been in the flat and/or raises the question if it may have been brought back to the flat after the initial search.
Have you a source for the time for the cadaver odour to appear. It seems Keela is pretty special and at the edge of new knowledge on this front. There maybe only by Keela's handler and close colleagues that know the times for sure.

DurhamGuy1967
Posts: 15
Join date: 2013-10-20

There's no evidence of major blood loss in the apartment, and the weather wasn't hot... And cooler still under the cover of darkness.

Thought the general rule for the start of decomposition is two hours. See if I can find the Body Farm research.
Decomp can be varied by temperature and (I think) massive blood loss. Not certain how much variation is caused by the body's size.

There's no evidence of major blood loss in the apartment, and the weather wasn't hot... Cooler still under the cover of darkness.

Wonder in an average week how many deaths a GP attends 2 hours later?

by DurhamGuy1967 29.10.13 4:48

Joss wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:You're right, Phooey, reading it again the exposure of the sample to the corpse was 10 minutes. The body was within 3 hours of being dead.

This raises an important question. What is the minimum delay after death occurs before a dog could detect the death smell? Did you say you'd seen reports, Candyfloss? This would be important to establish how long a body could have potentially have been in the flat and/or raises the question if it may have been brought back to the flat after the initial search.
Have you a source for the time for the cadaver odour to appear. It seems Keela is pretty special and at the edge of new knowledge on this front. There maybe only by Keela's handler and close colleagues that know the times for sure.

DurhamGuy1967
Posts: 15
Join date: 2013-10-20

This is an Interesting article you might find helpful to your question:
The CSI death dogs: Sniffing out the truth behind the crime-scene canines

One of the questions surrounding human cadaver dogs is how soon after death they can recognise a corpse, and how long a "fresh" corpse must remain in one place for a dog to detect that it has been there. In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.
Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation.
http://www.biologycorner.com/anatomy/senses/crimedogs.html

It doesn't say how long a body has to be dead to give a reaction to the dog and it may be specific to the sensitivity of the particular dog being used. All I've seen is very soon after death but precise times are not determinable ( taken from Martin Grimes report on McCann files ) If you think about it, how would you check? I would think you would have to have a forensic team hanging a round some ones death bed, and have written permissions from both the person about to die and their next of kin and medical staff. Even if it was done it would be quite controversal and you may need to repeat it a number of times

by DurhamGuy1967 29.10.13 4:59

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
Joss wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:You're right, Phooey, reading it again the exposure of the sample to the corpse was 10 minutes. The body was within 3 hours of being dead.

This raises an important question. What is the minimum delay after death occurs before a dog could detect the death smell? Did you say you'd seen reports, Candyfloss? This would be important to establish how long a body could have potentially have been in the flat and/or raises the question if it may have been brought back to the flat after the initial search.
Have you a source for the time for the cadaver odour to appear. It seems Keela is pretty special and at the edge of new knowledge on this front. There maybe only by Keela's handler and close colleagues that know the times for sure.

DurhamGuy1967
Posts: 15
Join date: 2013-10-20

This is an Interesting article you might find helpful to your question:
The CSI death dogs: Sniffing out the truth behind the crime-scene canines

One of the questions surrounding human cadaver dogs is how soon after death they can recognise a corpse, and how long a "fresh" corpse must remain in one place for a dog to detect that it has been there. In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.
Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation.
http://www.biologycorner.com/anatomy/senses/crimedogs.html
It doesn't say how long a body has to be dead to give a reaction to the dog and it may be specific to the sensitivity of the particular dog being used. All I've seen is very soon after death but precise times are not determinable ( taken from Martin Grimes report on McCann files ) If you think about it, how would you check? I would think you would have to have a forensic team hanging a round some ones death bed, and have written permissions from both the person about to die and their next of kin and medical staff. Even if it was done it would be quite controversal and you may need to repeat it a number of times

Just found a post on another thread on this forum suggesting the "smell of death" my start to occur as organs in the body start to fail and emit an odour even before death. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1248539/Meet-Oscar-cat-knows-.html

by kaldy 29.10.13 5:17

@jeanmonroe - very interesting info - DP pops in to the mccanns' apartment around 6.30pm, FP pops in around 7pm - I think this might be important?

by DurhamGuy1967 29.10.13 6:54

I've never understood Eddies indication behind the couch

In 2000, freelance dog handler Mick Swindells and his Border collie Shep, a trained human cadaver dog, were called to a 15-acre field near Nottingham to help locate the suspected grave of a murder victim. Shep signalled in one spot and the surrounding area was quickly dug, but nothing was found. Later that day, police returned with an informant, who identified the grave. Shep had been out by a metre.
It transpired that, in digging the grave, the murderer had put his spade through a field drain, causing volatile compounds from the decomposing cadaver to enter the drain. About a metre downhill of the cadaver, the drain was broken, preventing those compounds from dispersing further. The drain had, in effect, separated the body from its scent, and Shep had signalled the dislodged source of that scent – the breakage in the drain.
http://www.biologycorner.com/anatomy/senses/crimedogs.html

by Liz Eagles 29.10.13 7:01

I'm a bit confused now - has this thread turned into cadaver dog discussion?

by **tigger** 29.10.13 7:23

kaldy wrote:@jeanmonroe - very interesting info - DP pops in to the mccanns' apartment around 6.30pm, FP pops in around 7pm - I think this might be important?

I really think any time given by TM or the T7 should be fitted into times given by independent witnesses - not the other way round.

We know that e.g. the afternoon of the 3rd as told by the T9 does not fit with independent and CCTV records.
Any bits and pieces about checking and 'popping in' can betaken with a large dose of salt. Imo

-and yes this topic is about? Anything? big grin

Big storm here too yesterday. It's raining now...

by DurhamGuy1967 29.10.13 9:23

Let's get back on topic now...

If it was someone hiding a body it was a very good hiding place.

by dotdot 29.10.13 10:24

is there a cemetary near the church in PdL?

by bobbin 29.10.13 10:48

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Let's get back on topic now...

If it was someone hiding a body it was a very good hiding place.

I'm still hung up on some background info that could make the Smith sighting more of a 'contrived sighting' than 'actual removal' of body.
Kate made phone calls, earlier on in the week, and early morning, to friend Amanda, whose husband would be some sort of authority or guide in how to clean forensic evidence away.
The blood spats found, had been cleaned and damaged by bleach.
Visits to the supermarket were written into Kate's diary.
A key lost, or break in to the chemical / cleaning cupboard were 'reported?' by one of the cleaners.
There was no forensic evidence of Maddie being in 5A, hence a very thorough 'cleaning' operation which would have needed time to perform and then verify.
Blood between tiles had been attempted to be cleaned.
This needs time, more than was available during the evening of 3rd.
There does appear to be panic, on 3rd, but I also remember the very original and now whooshed info about Jez seeing Gerry by the shutters, fiddling, when Jez first set out with son in buggy at around 8 to 8.30 on 3rd.
Since the story of broken shutters was already being fired off by Philomena, regardless of the real fact that the shutters had not been damaged, makes me think that the 'abduction' scene went awry when Gerry was caught trying to set the scene by damaging the shutters (the pre-run having been the bedroom shutters earlier on in the week, repaired by the shutter men).
The 'tannerman' development, could have been a compensation to try to cover for Jez seeing Gerry, who chatted.
Jane was seen by Jez outside 5A as he left his apartment. Perhaps Jane was on 'look out' for Gerry and hissed a warning to 'stop' the shutter setting up, as Jez was appearing.
When it was realised that Jane's sighting could not correlate with the actual road in view (as questioned by a Portuguese police-lady) then maybe the Smith sighting was thrown in.
On being seen by so many however, the stress would have been placed back on the 'tannerman' sighting.
What I do not understand is why
1. The McCs so strenuously sought to avoid the Smith sighting
2. Why Gerry stated that he had not seen Jane, whilst he was talking with Jez, since this was a 'given alibi' that he was now throwing away.
I am still also concerned that Jez thought his meeting with Gerry was earlier than Gerry tried to insist it was.
I think the 3rd did go into a messy panic, but more due to 'cock-up' at being discovered 'up to no good' and that Maddie had been well disposed of before 3rd.
The cleaning was too contrived and efficient. The shutters were 'not damaged' yet Philomena stated as if they had been. She clearly had not been told to 'shut it' in time, and that initial 'blurting' put the whole saga under the sort of microscope that the McCs would have least ever wanted.
Just IMO of course.

by jozi 29.10.13 11:35

bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Let's get back on topic now...

If it was someone hiding a body it was a very good hiding place.
I'm still hung up on some background info that could make the Smith sighting more of a 'contrived sighting' than 'actual removal' of body.
Kate made phone calls, earlier on in the week, and early morning, to friend Amanda, whose husband would be some sort of authority or guide in how to clean forensic evidence away.
The blood spats found, had been cleaned and damaged by bleach.
Visits to the supermarket were written into Kate's diary.
A key lost, or break in to the chemical / cleaning cupboard were 'reported?' by one of the cleaners.
There was no forensic evidence of Maddie being in 5A, hence a very thorough 'cleaning' operation which would have needed time to perform and then verify.
Blood between tiles had been attempted to be cleaned.
This needs time, more than was available during the evening of 3rd.
There does appear to be panic, on 3rd, but I also remember the very original and now whooshed info about Jez seeing Gerry by the shutters, fiddling, when Jez first set out with son in buggy at around 8 to 8.30 on 3rd.
Since the story of broken shutters was already being fired off by Philomena, regardless of the real fact that the shutters had not been damaged, makes me think that the 'abduction' scene went awry when Gerry was caught trying to set the scene by damaging the shutters (the pre-run having been the bedroom shutters earlier on in the week, repaired by the shutter men).
The 'tannerman' development, could have been a compensation to try to cover for Jez seeing Gerry, who chatted.
Jane was seen by Jez outside 5A as he left his apartment. Perhaps Jane was on 'look out' for Gerry and hissed a warning to 'stop' the shutter setting up, as Jez was appearing.
When it was realised that Jane's sighting could not correlate with the actual road in view (as questioned by a Portuguese police-lady) then maybe the Smith sighting was thrown in.
On being seen by so many however, the stress would have been placed back on the 'tannerman' sighting.
What I do not understand is why
1. The McCs so strenuously sought to avoid the Smith sighting
2. Why Gerry stated that he had not seen Jane, whilst he was talking with Jez, since this was a 'given alibi' that he was now throwing away.
I am still also concerned that Jez thought his meeting with Gerry was earlier than Gerry tried to insist it was.
I think the 3rd did go into a messy panic, but more due to 'cock-up' at being discovered 'up to no good' and that Maddie had been well disposed of before 3rd.
The cleaning was too contrived and efficient. The shutters were 'not damaged' yet Philomena stated as if they had been. She clearly had not been told to 'shut it' in time, and that initial 'blurting' put the whole saga under the sort of microscope that the McCs would have least ever wanted.
Just IMO of course.

Yes bobbin, it was too clean, Mr Amaral commented on it also .The final stages for the abduction could only be put in place on the 3rd May night and I believe they did panic....even Murat said it was the biggest cock-up of the century, or words to that effect !!!

by loopzdaloop 29.10.13 11:43

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I've never understood Eddies indication behind the couch

I think she cracked her head open on the floor there, attempting to look out the window and it is where she breathed her last.
I think it was the night that Mrs Fenn heard extended crying.
Even in the crimewatch episode they admitted leaving their children behind most of the night. They only changed their mind after Maddie (allegedly said) "Mummy why didn't you come for us when we were crying", the morning after the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying. Considering that the Mccann's very rarely say anything that makes themselves look bad, and use all the dark arts to surpress information, I find it weird that they should do so in this instance and then repeat it again on crimewatch.
I'm convicted that this anecdote serves an alternate purpose, which is to 'prove' that Maddie was alive the morning after. Which I don't think she was.
I think they found her and she was more than 2 hours dead and another Tapas tried to do CPR (as they could have initially thought she could have been comatose due to the sedation drugs. The CPR is what caused the specks by the door.

by Sockpuppet 29.10.13 12:15

loopzdaloop wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I've never understood Eddies indication behind the couch

I think she cracked her head open on the floor there, attempting to look out the window and it is where she breathed her last.
I think it was the night that Mrs Fenn heard extended crying.
Even in the crimewatch episode they admitted leaving their children behind most of the night. They only changed their mind after Maddie (allegedly said) "Mummy why didn't you come for us when we were crying", the morning after the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying. Considering that the Mccann's very rarely say anything that makes themselves look bad, and use all the dark arts to surpress information, I find it weird that they should do so in this instance and then repeat it again on crimewatch.
I'm convicted that this anecdote serves an alternate purpose, which is to 'prove' that Maddie was alive the morning after. Which I don't think she was.
I think they found her and she was more than 2 hours dead and another Tapas tried to do CPR (as they could have initially thought she could have been comatose due to the sedation drugs. The CPR is what caused the specks by the door.

My problem with a death prior to May 3rd is Kate's scream as heard by J.R.Salcedas on the night of the disappearance. Kate must have discovered something awful at this point.

Others have suggested that perhaps Kate discovered that Maddy's body had been removed at this time. Well, in that case, the body must have been in the apartment for 2 days, if your assumption is that she died on May 1st.

It doesn't matter how much cleaning you do or how much air freshener you use, the smell of a dead body does not go away very easily, as demonstrated by the hire car boot being seen open night and day for weeks. The GNR would have immediately sensed this smell on arrival.

If Maddy died previous to 3rd May, she must have been removed pretty sharpish.

So what did Kate scream about?

Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Who is 'Smith-man'? (MULTIPLE CHOICE - You can vote for more than one answer)