Re: Digging to start next week - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

by Watching The Detectives 01.06.14 9:27

Do we know for certain that it wasn't taken as evidence?

Is it stated anywhere in the police files that it is missing?

If the police believe it is missing were the McCanns asked where it was during interviews?

by canada12 01.06.14 9:42

noddy100 wrote:Wouldn't the pink blanket have been an excellent DNA source rather than a trip to rothley?

I agree. As would Cuddlecat, surely? If Madeleine slept with both, it's highly likely that her DNA could have been found on them.

by Guest 01.06.14 9:57

canada12 wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Wouldn't the pink blanket have been an excellent DNA source rather than a trip to rothley?

I agree. As would Cuddlecat, surely? If Madeleine slept with both, it's highly likely that her DNA could have been found on them.

Wonder whether any dna was ever llocated on the pink hat worn in the last photo?

by canada12 01.06.14 10:36

MILLIE wrote:
canada12 wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Wouldn't the pink blanket have been an excellent DNA source rather than a trip to rothley?

I agree. As would Cuddlecat, surely? If Madeleine slept with both, it's highly likely that her DNA could have been found on them.
Wonder whether any dna was ever llocated on the pink hat worn in the last photo?

Actually Madeleine was wearing a white hat in the last photo. The pink hat was worn by Amelie. But there's some indication it's the same pink hat Madeleine was wearing in the tennis balls photo. So, by elimination, there should have been DNA on the pink hat AND the white hat. Not to mention the clothes she was wearing by the pool. Oh wait. Those were washed, weren't they.

by **PeterMac** 01.06.14 10:43

canada12 wrote:
Actually Madeleine was wearing a white hat in the last photo. The pink hat was worn by Amelie. But there's some indication it's the same pink hat Madeleine was wearing in the tennis balls photo. So, by elimination, there should have been DNA on the pink hat AND the white hat. Not to mention the clothes she was wearing by the pool. Oh wait. Those were washed, weren't they.

But that was on the Sunday !

by **PeterMac** 01.06.14 10:44

Watching The Detectives wrote:Do we know for certain that it wasn't taken as evidence?

Only the SIO, Dr Amaral saying it was missing.
I think he would have known.

by canada12 01.06.14 10:46

PeterMac wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Actually Madeleine was wearing a white hat in the last photo. The pink hat was worn by Amelie. But there's some indication it's the same pink hat Madeleine was wearing in the tennis balls photo. So, by elimination, there should have been DNA on the pink hat AND the white hat. Not to mention the clothes she was wearing by the pool. Oh wait. Those were washed, weren't they.
But that was on the Sunday !

The clothes were washed on the Sunday?
What an oversight by Kate! Just think, she could have saved hubby that entire journey to Rothley, if only she'd thought of giving the police Madeleine's Monsoon and Gap togs before she tossed them into the wash.

by Watching The Detectives 01.06.14 11:04

Nobody, including PeterMac, is commenting on what is, in my view, the contorting of what Kate said (as in my long post on a previous page).

Is nobody else bothered by it? Especially if this is what Dr Amaral, whom I admire, is referring to in his interview and is the possible basis of re-opening of the case. Unless there is more about the blanket elsewhere then I can't see this leading anywhere.

Everything the McCanns say is scrutinised to the nth degree and inconsistencies found ......but no-one seems willing to give that same degree of scrutiny, and give a view, to what has happened regarding what was or wasn't said about the blanket.

Why?

I am not a McCann supporter but, in my opinion, it undermines the value of this forum when objectivity seems lacking.

by **PeterMac** 01.06.14 11:30

canada12 wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Actually Madeleine was wearing a white hat in the last photo. The pink hat was worn by Amelie. But there's some indication it's the same pink hat Madeleine was wearing in the tennis balls photo. So, by elimination, there should have been DNA on the pink hat AND the white hat. Not to mention the clothes she was wearing by the pool. Oh wait. Those were washed, weren't they.
But that was on the Sunday !

The clothes were washed on the Sunday?

I meant the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday. Sorry

by russiandoll 01.06.14 11:40

noddy100 wrote:Wouldn't the pink blanket have been an excellent DNA source rather than a trip to rothley?

Yes. Maddie if found might be wrapped in it.

by **PeterMac** 01.06.14 11:42

Watching The Detectives wrote:Nobody, including PeterMac, is commenting on what is, in my view, the contorting of what Kate said (as in my long post on a previous page).
Is nobody else bothered by it? Especially if this is what Dr Amaral, whom I admire, is referring to in his interview and is the possible basis of re-opening of the case. Unless there is more about the blanket elsewhere then I can't see this leading anywhere.
Everything the McCanns say is scrutinised to the nth degree and inconsistencies found ......but no-one seems willing to give that same degree of scrutiny, and give a view, to what has happened regarding what was or wasn't said about the blanket.
Why?
I am not a McCann supporter but, in my opinion, it undermines the value of this forum when objectivity seems lacking.

The blanket was on the bed - Photo and 'evidence' fromKate
The blanket has not been seen since - Dr Amaral comments in his book
Vanity Fair article, which they did not like, talks about the blanket
Oprah brings up the blanket as a loose quote from the Vanity Fair article - and is NOT Corrected by Kate or Gerry. Nor do they explain along the lines of
"we are keeping her pink blanket very close as it is the last thing we have of hers . . . I can't even bring myself to wash it . . . "
Nothing. Silence. Schtumm.

It has simply been whooshed from the record, unless it is on a list of Exhibits and in languishing in a brown paper exhibit bag, for example.
But if that were so I would expect Dr Amaral to know.
And he doesn't.
So it isn't.

So where is it ? What happened to it ? It is INCONCEIVABLE that it would have been destroyed, or that it was handed down to another child.

And several things which we once thought were not going to lead anywhere else have proved to be important.
The date of the Last Photo being only one. Having struggled with photoshopping and sought expert opinions from across the world on that aspect
there was a Revelation moment when we found that the date had been changed. and from there the proof rolled in like a tidal wave.
We should have looked for the simple answer first.

by canada12 01.06.14 11:49

PeterMac wrote:
canada12 wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Actually Madeleine was wearing a white hat in the last photo. The pink hat was worn by Amelie. But there's some indication it's the same pink hat Madeleine was wearing in the tennis balls photo. So, by elimination, there should have been DNA on the pink hat AND the white hat. Not to mention the clothes she was wearing by the pool. Oh wait. Those were washed, weren't they.
But that was on the Sunday !

The clothes were washed on the Sunday?

I meant the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday. Sorry

Oops. Well yes, of course. But they wanted us to believe it was taken on the very day that Madeleine disappeared. And so - the white hat and the Monsoon and Gap clothes would have been ideal to hand to the police. Even if she'd worn them on the Sunday before. Why would that mean they still wouldn't have her DNA on them? Puzzling.

by Watching The Detectives 01.06.14 11:52

Thanks for your answer PeterMac.

I accept that the pink blanket may be very relevant.

BUT the Vanity Fair article does not refer to 'the blanket' as far as I can see.

Oprah introduces 'the blanket' and I don't think anything can be read into the way Kate answers.

And the report by Correio de Manha does not, in my opinion, reflect what has been said, but it has become the basis for speculation.

by Guest 01.06.14 11:55

canada12 wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Actually Madeleine was wearing a white hat in the last photo. The pink hat was worn by Amelie. But there's some indication it's the same pink hat Madeleine was wearing in the tennis balls photo. So, by elimination, there should have been DNA on the pink hat AND the white hat. Not to mention the clothes she was wearing by the pool. Oh wait. Those were washed, weren't they.
But that was on the Sunday !

The clothes were washed on the Sunday?
What an oversight by Kate! Just think, she could have saved hubby that entire journey to Rothley, if only she'd thought of giving the police Madeleine's Monsoon and Gap togs before she tossed them into the wash.

Regarding DNA:

"Sources close to the family say that, if Madeleine's DNA was in the car, it would be quite possible the traces got there from Madeleine's clothes and toys which the McCann twins Sean and Amelie had been playing with.

Her Dna would also be on her parents' clothes from where they cuddled and played with her. Kate said: "Five weeks ago, they took away all our clothes, items people had sent out for us.”

********************************************************************************************************
"It is believed the entire Portuguese case rests on DNA evidence from body fluids which allegedly suggests that Madeleine's corpse was carried in the boot of the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic.

But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments."

********************************************************************************************************
"Who is to say what happened when they moved to the new apartment? Everything, including Madeleine's sandals and the twins' nappies, were dumped in the car. Bags of stuff were thrown in. Anything could have found its way there. Gerry folded down the rear seat to cram it all in.

"These items will have included traces of skin, sweat and bodily fluids. DNA could easily have been transferred in such circumstances."

It seems Maddies DNA was everywhere (except 5A)
So why the need to back to Rothley for DNA?
The trip must have been for another purpose (last photo?).

ps (OT but did I get the must have/must of right? smilie

)

by **tigger** 01.06.14 12:26

Watching The Detectives wrote:Yes, perhaps the pink blanket is of interest....as I said in my post.

But what do you think about the rest of my comment?

And regarding the fibres...it has been speculated elsewhere that, rather than the pink blanket, there could be a match to the aztec towel found at the barn.

Well, Dr. Amaral definitely said the blanket was the key. He also mentioned fibres which were found both in the barn and the car.

The physical adventures of the blanket are as follows:

Photographed by PJ or GNR on night of 3rd.
A pink blanket was handed to the first set of dog handlers who arrived at 02.00 , who'd asked for clothes but were given a pink blanket. ( for clarity we will assume there was only one pink blanket associated with Maddie on the premises)
The flat was vacated around 4.00 am.
The pink blanket was never seen again.
No doubt there is a report from the GNR that this item was returned to Ms Healy. They were lucky, the next set of dogs were given a towel to sniff. Clothes were all washed on Saturday by MW - the statement of the staff is in the files.

The implication - if one assumes that Dr. Amaral was not talking about fibres from the Aztec towel, which is higlt unlikely since the towel was found in the barn and as the fibres mentioned are not referring to the towel but loose fibres found in that location -
Is that at some stage the blanket rejoined Maddie, some time after she'd bodily disappeared from 5a.

So yes, the blanket is important.
A towel seen in the photographs of 5a seems to have an Aztec pattern.

Imo the blanket(s) mentioned by Kate point to a certain obsession about supplying a blanket to her daughter. Perhaps it's going to be an extenuating circ. in the defence?

by Ashwarya 01.06.14 13:14

I would find it incredibly difficult to part with my son's little blue blanket that he had as a toddler. And he is nearly 24 now.

by **PeterMac** 01.06.14 13:20

Ashwarya wrote:I would find it incredibly difficult to part with my son's little blue blanket that he had as a toddler. And he is nearly 24 now.

Wel quite. And how many parents still have their child's teddy / cuddle cat / rabbit however threadbare and stained it may be.
They are never washed (unless 'extremely' soiled), and are never thrown away.

Dont reply. We know the answer.

by bobbin 01.06.14 13:30

PeterMac wrote:
Ashwarya wrote:I would find it incredibly difficult to part with my son's little blue blanket that he had as a toddler. And he is nearly 24 now.
Wel quite. And how many parents still have their child's teddy / cuddle cat / rabbit however threadbare and stained it may be.
They are never washed (unless 'extremely' soiled), and are never thrown away.

Dont reply. We know the answer.

A totally simple question.
Kate couldn't be separated from Maddie's Cuddle Cat. It went everywhere with her, in the back of the rucksack, peeping out at all the journalists and photographers.
She caressed it with her fingers during interviews on sofas. She put it up to her face, to conceal her 'EMOTIONS (was it a snigger) when photographed on the beach with Gerry, just a day or so after Maddie had disappeared.
It was as though Kate could not let go of what Maddie had last cuddled up to.
So why didn't Kate also carry the pink blanket around with her, or fold it up preciously, and wrap it for safe keeping.
Where is it ? She should be able to 'produce' it now, WITH Maddie's DNA residues on it.
Where is it Kate ?
Cuddle Cat was found to have Maddie's residues on it, the dogs found that.
The blanket was in the photos, AFTER the abduction. It clearly didn't go with the 'abduction', so where is it now?

by **PeterMac** 01.06.14 13:39

Just thinking out loud about the implications of any of the following being found during any 'dig' or search . .

Pink Blanket - Entire story proved to be false since it proves involvement after the event
Eeyore Pyjamas - tells us nothing specific, except that there were multiple identical pairs - which is itself unusual and suspicious but not absolutely impossible
Traces of sedation, - not absolutely conclusive, though high suspicious in view of the sedation of the twins.
Traces of "other substances" - highly suspicious given "Window of Opportunity"
Physical injury - (they are STILL looking at cause of death and life style of Tutankhamen and Ötzi, so 7 years is no problem ) - might indicate but not signify
Blue bag - see above - blanket

And what else ?
Where does this take us ?

by Sparklehorse 01.06.14 13:40

I am in the middle of clearing my Mum's house and have just found my Koala Bear that I was given by my aunt in Australia when I was a baby. I took it everywhere as a toddler and all the fur is worn off its bum. It wouldn't be out of place on the Antiques Roadshow but my mum kept it in her bedroom all these years even though she saw me nearly every day. Probably reminded her of when I was a nice wee soul . It will stay in my spare room now and probably freak out any visitors. laughat

by Guest 01.06.14 14:11

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

Link to the Mccannfiles relating to the pink blanket, including the photo of it on the bed during the night of the disappearance.

If Dr Amaral is right and the blanket was used as a funeral shroud, that can only mean the body was retrieved from a temporary resting place to be wrapped in the blanket at a later date. If a secret funeral service was held in the church then this would surely give more credence to the theory that Madeleine's body could be hidden within a tomb in the church or sharing a tomb in the graveyard - two areas surely safe from detection by cadaver dogs?

In one of the articles in that link, Goncalo makes reference to the fact that the McCanns had the key to the church, and alludes to the key to the mystery being held within the village of Luz:

"Still according to the former inspector, the Catholic Church knows about that secret which might be, supposedly, known to high positioned figures inside the clergy. In fact, one poorly clarified point in this strange story is the fact that the couple had access to the church keys, which were handed to them by the Anglican priest, who has justified that fact with the necessity of praying for their daughter, away of the media spotlights.

Gonçalo Amaral sustains that the key to the discovery of Maddie's disappearance is in the Village of Luz and that, if this new clue is duly followed by the authorities, it may become decisive in unravelling the mystery."

This, of course, echo's the riddle posed by the other PJ cop, Paolo Cristovao in his book, in which he asserts in the final words that the key to the mystery is contained within 4 numbers "Those would be the 5, the 2, the 3 and the 1" and which he calls "The Luz Key". I have been intrigued by this riddle, and have long wondered if it simply means - in an echo of the fact that Dr Amaral believes the solution is held within the village and the fact of the McCanns possessing the church key is highly relevant - this:

The 5 - PRAIA

The 2 - DA

The 3 - LUZ

The 1 - The one Key - the church key held by the McCanns.

The key to the mystery literally being the Key to the Church.

\"jhansigirl2 wrote:Were the tombs in the cemetery searched by the PJ in 2007?

A very good question indeed.

All the above is theory and speculation on my part.

by Justformaddie 01.06.14 14:48

I wonder if the digging is going to commence in the morning? I wonder will we get the exclusive pix of them arriving tonight or in the morning? Or will we get nothing?

by bobbin 01.06.14 14:56

Dee Coy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Link to the Mccannfiles relating to the pink blanket, including the photo of it on the bed during the night of the disappearance.

If Dr Amaral is right and the blanket was used as a funeral shroud, that can only mean the body was retrieved from a temporary resting place to be wrapped in the blanket at a later date. If a secret funeral service was held in the church then this would surely give more credence to the theory that Madeleine's body could be hidden within a tomb in the church or sharing a tomb in the graveyard - two areas surely safe from detection by cadaver dogs?

In one of the articles in that link, Goncalo makes reference to the fact that the McCanns had the key to the church, and alludes to the key to the mystery being held within the village of Luz:

"Still according to the former inspector, the Catholic Church knows about that secret which might be, supposedly, known to high positioned figures inside the clergy. In fact, one poorly clarified point in this strange story is the fact that the couple had access to the church keys, which were handed to them by the Anglican priest, who has justified that fact with the necessity of praying for their daughter, away of the media spotlights.

Gonçalo Amaral sustains that the key to the discovery of Maddie's disappearance is in the Village of Luz and that, if this new clue is duly followed by the authorities, it may become decisive in unravelling the mystery."

This, of course, echo's the riddle posed by the other PJ cop, Paolo Cristovao in his book, in which he asserts in the final words that the key to the mystery is contained within 4 numbers "Those would be the 5, the 2, the 3 and the 1" and which he calls "The Luz Key". I have been intrigued by this riddle, and have long wondered if it simply means - in an echo of the fact that Dr Amaral believes the solution is held within the village and the fact of the McCanns possessing the church key is highly relevant - this:

The 5 - PRAIA

The 2 - DE

The 3 - LUZ

The 1 - The one Key - the church key held by the McCanns.

The key to the mystery literally being the Key to the Church.

\"jhansigirl2 wrote:Were the tombs in the cemetery searched by the PJ in 2007?

A very good question indeed.

All the above is theory and speculation on my part.

Very interesting, first time seeing the numbers coming up like that and this observation may come up more often. For that reason, if you've still got the time, could you edit to change to Praia DA (not DE) Luz, it's so much more Portuguese, and honourable for that reason. roses

by Guest 01.06.14 15:03

Of course, bobbin, and already done.

Apologies for my mistake, and thank you for your gentle correction. roses

by **Nina** 01.06.14 16:10

The proposed dig is on land by and right up to the walls of the cemetery. I have been trying to find information of hallowed ground and where it ends. Is it at the gates, or walls or does it extend with the soil that is around the roots of the trees that grow by the walls?

by Guest 01.06.14 16:25

Inasmuch as I know "holy ground" is a Catholic cemetery and a church ...

by Justformaddie 01.06.14 16:34

Surely they wouldn't be allowed to check graves, would they?

by **Nina** 01.06.14 16:49

Found my answer in this link,
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In this section,

Consecration necessitated a definite boundary being fixed for the enclosure of the graves, and we find many instances where it was insisted that consecrated ground should be isolated by walls or other means, and that special care should be taken that the ground so enclosed should not become neglected.

and this,

At the consecration of a burial ground, the bishop walks in solemn procession round its boundaries, expelling by special prayers, all evil influences which might disturb the dead. Even in times of national crisis, such as the plague, this was carried out in the case where new ground was required for the burial of the dead. It is interesting to note what the modern "psychic" has to say on this ancient practice.

by **PeterMac** 01.06.14 18:12

Nina wrote:Found my answer in this link,
In this section,
Consecration necessitated a definite boundary being fixed for the enclosure of the graves, and we find many instances where it was insisted that consecrated ground should be isolated by walls or other means, and that special care should be taken that the ground so enclosed should not become neglected.[/size]
and this,
At the consecration of a burial ground, the bishop walks in solemn procession round its boundaries, expelling by special prayers, all evil influences which might disturb the dead. Even in times of national crisis, such as the plague, this was carried out in the case where new ground was required for the burial of the dead. It is interesting to note what the modern "psychic" has to say on this ancient practice.

I used to wonder how you then "De-consecrated" a church, for example so that someone could convert it into a bijou residence.

On the above evidence you would have to let the evil spirits back IN.
Which supposes that the modern church believes in evil spirits
Which MUST be under the control of the Almighty (omni -3 things)

After a bit I gave up !

by **Nina** 01.06.14 18:20

PeterMac wrote:
Nina wrote:Found my answer in this link,
In this section,
Consecration necessitated a definite boundary being fixed for the enclosure of the graves, and we find many instances where it was insisted that consecrated ground should be isolated by walls or other means, and that special care should be taken that the ground so enclosed should not become neglected.[/size]
and this,
At the consecration of a burial ground, the bishop walks in solemn procession round its boundaries, expelling by special prayers, all evil influences which might disturb the dead. Even in times of national crisis, such as the plague, this was carried out in the case where new ground was required for the burial of the dead. It is interesting to note what the modern "psychic" has to say on this ancient practice.

I used to wonder how you then "De-consecrated" a church, for example so that someone could convert it into a bijou residence.

On the above evidence you would have to let the evil spirits back IN.
Which supposes that the modern church believes in evil spirits
Which MUST be under the control of the Almighty (omni -3 things)

After a bit I gave up !

I found this once before and it appears that consecrated earth/soil can be placed with the deceased if they are not buried in a Catholic cemetery,

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

snipped,

When [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are buried in ground which is not specially [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for their use the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] conducting the funeral is directed by the "Rituale Romanum" to[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the grave, and if the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] himself cannot conduct the funeral further, to put blessed earth into the coffin.