I spent so much time putting a post together the thread was locked in the meantime but I think this information is important.
Here are the forensic photos from behind the sofa...
Many (including myself) believe that this may be the place Madeleine died.
found behind the sofa and that it appears to have been 'cleaned'.
Rachael made a comment about 'rescusitation'.
accumulated for cadaver odour to develop.
The time it takes for cadaver odour to develop varies in many peoples opinions, from what I understand it is because studies have not been done to show short periods of time so 90 minutes seems to be agreed upon but may be shorter time period.
spots, the cadaver odour to develop and the body removed within a short period of time (never mind many other issues) specifically between 7.00 and 10pm Thursday May 3rd.
That is one of the reasons I believe Madeleine died before Thursday evening (Daniel Stuk, tennis coach, specifically stated seeing Gerry at tennis between 6 and 7pm)
Therefore, I believe that at 6.45pm Madeleine was already dead and all comments and statements about 'High Tea made by Gerry, Kate and Catriona are questionable.
I feel that Goncalo Amaral's comments are very important and it should be recognised that he is limited to only stating what is in the files, whether the statements are correct or not.
In this comment he appears to say that he makes his assessments based on what is contained in the files. He cannot comment on any theories that are based on his opinions or details that have not been released.
If Goncalo Amaral's theory is that she woke and went to the sofa to look out of the window and fell, why would he claim in the video that it does not show Madeleine had slept in it (since the cleaner came the morning before?)
His theory is limited to what is in the files but his thoughts may lead elsewhere imo
Goncalo Amaral does not appear to believe Madeleine slept in her bed that night or on Wednesday night and does not appear to believe there were checks made that night.
He claims they may have been asked to make those statements.
By suggesting that Madeleine did not sleep in the bed "It carries no signs that anyone was in it" he is also suggesting that she would not have slept in it on Wednesday night either.
This may change a lot of theories that are based on her waking up in her bed that night (how could she if she wasn't in the bed?)
If he is of the belief that she did not sleep in the bed on Wednesday night either(after the bed was made by the cleaner), it may be possible that he believes something happened prior to Thursday.
Another Goncalo Amaral quote
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.htmlQ: What do you think is the meaning of the blood behind the sofa?
A: Possibly from an attempt at resuscitation.
If Madeleine died during dinner (between 8.30pm and 10.00pm) would there have been time to clean the
blood, possibly spend time resuscitating, compose enough to dispose of her body (within about an hour if Smith sighting is a consideration) spend time at the restaurant and casually chat with Jez Wilkins during that scenario?
I find that almost an impossibility and that does not deal with the shock and grief of the circumstances so I am curious how others can build that 'timeline' of it all happeneing in a little more than an hour, along with explaining the
blood behind the sofa).
It is possible that her body was removed in the 'bag' but I would suggest it was after the photos were taken as it did not appear in any of the forensics (as well as the pink blanket).
She may have been removed to the flower bed but in a search, that would have been one of the first places to for everyone to look.
Kate's trousers were in contact with Madeleine's body. Was that the night she died or when she was removed 3 weeks or more (I suspect end of July when the trunk was seen by neighbour to be left open and Sandy Cameron made the claim that it was the shopping)
If kept in a freezer, I would doubt that Kate had a close connection with Madeleine in the removal later, so she was with Madeleine and wearing the checquered trousers, probably when Madeleine died. (imo)
If that was the case it would not have been Thursday night imo
docmac wrote: HiDeHo wrote:
I realise that the 'after 5.30pm' scenario is very popular (and could, of course be correct) but I would like to see how the timeline could be played out.
I have gone over this in my mind and cannot figure the probability of it happening during these times. There seems to be so little time for it to have happened and for the resulting grief and shock to be dealt with.
Hi HiDeHo
Your reasoning and logistical thinking are both impeccable and admirable. I would be inclined to agree entirely - but for one thing. They are doctors. I'll leave it at that really, as I'll likely be attacked for saying so, but rationalizing this sort of scenario becomes second nature in the clinical environment. When an 'arse' needs saving, it's not a big stretch...
Not saying you are wrong, but there is no reason to think that this could not be done.
I agree docmac and do not want to appear as though I am minimising what others consider is 'probable', but there are so many questions that are additional to the 'after 5.30pm' scenario that I feel need to be explained to some degree before I could eliminate 'prior to 5.30pm' as the time she died.
Some are included here..
Discrepancy Questions..1 Why did the Paynes and Matthew Oldfield claim to have passed each other in very different places on the way to the tapas and Dianne Webster claimed to have not seen him until her Rogatory when she remembered because Dave and Fiona had reminded her.
2 Why did Rachael claim the last time she saw Madeleine was at mini tennis on Thursday. Madeleine's group played on Tuesday. Is Tuesday the last time she saw her?
3 Why did Rachael describe the mini tennis as played on Court 1, when the records show it was Court 2. (the police seemed to find it important by questioning her)
4 Why did Catriona claim that Gerry wasn't at high tea on May 3rd and that she thought he was at tennis, when both Kate and Gerry claim he was there.
5 Why did Gerry claim to have entered the front door and opened the patio doors for Kate who was carrying Madeleine back from high tea on May 3rd. Kate says they all went in through the front doors.
6 Why did they give different accounts of Madeleine asking about why they didn't come to her. (She asked her father, she asked Kate, it was the twins crying, it was her crying etc)
7 Why did Gerry claim that he picked Madeleine up from the creche on Thursday lunch (he remembered taking the short cut) when Kate and Fiona claim they walked together. Kate says she went to the apartment first, Fiona said they left from the pool area.
8 Why did the police compile the Diagram of Events according to Catriona telling them that she only went to the beach twice, on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon, not mentioning the mini sail.
9 Why did they not release Thursday diagram or twins creche record for Thursday morning?
10 Why, after the family's trip to the beach Tuesday lunchtime (for 5 ice creams) did they drop Madleine off at the creche in time for her to go on another trip (to the beach?) for ice cream trip
11 Why did Catriona claim they went to the beach 15.30 to 16.30 on Tuesday and Wednesday and did not mention the ice cream trip, 2.30pm-3.30pm Tuesday according to the Activity sheet.
12 Why did Kate receive a 'flurry' of phone calls (between 10.16pm and 10.27pm) in the 15 minutes prior to Mrs Fenn hearing the crying Was she at the tapas as she claims they did not arrive back until 11.00pm?
13 Why did Kate make (unusual) very early morning calls to her friend (Amanda, her husband is a pathologist) on Wednesday morning?
14 Why did Najoua the quiz mistress claim that no-one (including Gerry) left the table during the time she was there (9.00pm-9.50pm?) and she does not recall seeing Kate or David Payne at the table. Just an empty place setting.
15 Why did Catriona claim to have seem Jane and David at the beach when she was at the mini sail. Why would she have known David?
16 Where are the pictures of Ella taken at the mini sail and why (with only a few children) was Madeleine not in the picture.
17 Did Catriona take the children to the mini sail alone? Why is there no statement from the other nannies to say they went?
18 Why did the police not interview Alice Stanley and Chris Unsworth, the mini sail instructors?
19 Why is there not one credible sighting of Madeleine after Sunday lunchtime when she was seen by the cleaner's daughter leaving the apartment for lunch at the Paynes?
20 Why did Kate claim the shutters were broken on Sunday and the maintenance fixed them on Monday when records shows it was Tuesday. Why did they need to show her how to use the washing machine?
21 Why did the cleaner claim there was a cot in the parents bedroom on Wednesday morning and both Gerry and Kate denied it was there?
22 Why did Madeleine's bed not show signs of being used, when it was made up by the cleaner on Wednesday morning and should have been slept in Wednesday night as well as Thursday evening? (the other bed was messy)
23 Why did the pictures from the apartment show a (relatively) normal amount of clothes left around when the cleaners daughter said that her mother had mentioned to her about the mess of their apartment (indicating something abnormal).
24 Why did Matthew Oldfield claim to have been sick because of what he had eaten on the plane, and yet suggested that Rachael's sickness on Wednesday may have been the same as his.
25 Why is there very little information regarding the week from David Payne's statements?
26 Why did the police question Fiona about the time after the Paraiso vist and then push her to admit that she didn't know what David was doing between 6.00pm and 7.00pm?
27 Why did David claim to have arrived back at the apartment approx 8.00pm when Fiona claims he was there at 7.10 (while he was 'supposedly' playing tennis at the Mens Social')
28 Why did Kate claim that David didn't enter the apartment when David claims to have entered and described the children at length?
29 Why did Rachael claim that Ella may have been given a bath at their apartment on Thursday evening?
30 Why was there a lot of 'avoidance of specifics' and 'days rolled over' in the statements?
There is more, but thats all for now...
Food for thought? (especially considering most of it is earlier than 5.30pm May 3rd)
docmac wrote:I'll stress again that you make a very strong case. I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, and you have done a great deal of research to back it up. All I am saying is that the 'alternative' should not be discounted, given that they are doctors.
As I mentioned above, I don't intend to 'minimise' the 'after 5.30pm' scenario and agree that, with them being doctors, the scenario could be explained a little easier.
I try to 'back up' my opinions etc with references and/or explanations. (sometimes too much!)
I would like to see the 'after 5.30pm' timeline explained instead of it being only an opinion, with no explanation as to whether the scenario is credible.
I laid out the times and details supplied by the McCanns and the confirmed 'sightings' of Gerry McCann (times when he was not in the apartment dealing with the situation).
If I was to consider an 'after 5.30pm' scenario as being 'probable' (anything is just 'possible') I would need to understand how the scenario played out and why 10pm was the chosen time to alert to Madeleine's disappearance aka the 'abduction'.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion...Its the opinions that can be 'explained' that have the most credibility imo.
I cannot blindly believe something just because it is the opinion of someone else, which is why I offer as much info as possible. I don't want anyone agreeing with my opinion unless they look at the details and form their own opinion, which may agree with me.... or may not.
It doesn't really matter, at the end of the day, who is correct and who had it all wrong...as long as we continue to research and discuss to keep Madeleine in the spotlight and in our hearts.
<!-- div class="online2">
HiDeHo wrote:
The timeline we are given by Gerry & Kate:
5.40pm The McCanns arrive back at the apartment after 'high tea'. Gerry claims they all went in through the front door and Kate (who was carrying Madeleine) says he opened the patio doors for her.
Statement by Gerry McCann, 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the back door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
Statement by Kate McCann on 6th of September 2007, at 3 p.mThey entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it.
Both extracts from themaddiecasefiles.com statements.
So, in fact, GERRY (on 10 May) says that Kate entered through 'back door'. KATE (on 6th September) says they entered the apartment by the main door. But also relevant is the fact there there's a 4 month time difference between the statements
Sorry, HiDeHo, but it's lack of attention to detail like this that really bothers me. I always have the feeling that you're trying to massage the data to fit your theories (purely imho).
Thanks for pointing that out carmen.
I did see my mistake as I was posting the statements but omitted, accidentally, to correct my mistake in the summary which I detailed from memory.
Like anyone else I do make mistakes and have always been willing to admit to them if corrected.
It is your prerogative to consider that a mistake negates all of the information that I collate.
I welcome other members correcting me if necessary as I would not like to know that something I add, if incorrect, creates a forum myth.
I do not look for perfection in others and I do not expect it of myself.
It does not make my efforts less credible in my opinion, but does serve to keep others vigilant and forming their own opinions based on what they have researched (which is why I try to show info and give links if possible) and not believing blindly what others, including myself, have posted.
HiDeHo
Thanks for pointing that out carmen.
I did see my mistake as I was posting the statements but omitted, accidentally, to correct my mistake in the summary which I detailed from memory.
Like anyone else I do make mistakes and have always been willing to admit to them if corrected.
It is your prerogative to consider that a mistake negates all of the information that I collate.
I welcome other members correcting me if necessary as I would not like to know that something I add, if incorrect, creates a forum myth.
I do not look for perfection in others and I do not expect it of myself.
It does not make my efforts less credible in my opinion, but does serve to keep others vigilant and forming their own opinions based on what they have researched (which is why I try to show info and give links if possible) and not believing blindly what others, including myself, have posted.
carmen wrote: HiDeHo wrote:
I did see my mistake as I was posting the statements but omitted, accidentally, to correct my mistake ...
I'm not sure that omission/neglect can be accidental
I'm not even going to contemplate how many more there might be........
I'm more than happy to accept the fact that, as humans, we all make mistakes at times - but some seem more prone to mistake-making than others....
imho it's always better to refer to the
true source to back up any opinions
Once again carmen, it is your prerogative to have any opinion about my posts that you wish.
Not everyone agrees with you.
I do not need to justify, why, with the volume of research that I collate and post, I should not lose credibility based on a few omissions/mistakes that I am willing to admit to after having them pointed out.
Should I presume that all the information and research that you post regarding the justification of your opinions is correct in every detail?
Can you point me in the direction of your posts that contain your thoughts on the investigation and the research and reasoning behind your opinions.
I find it important to understand why other members (including yourself) have differing opinions to myself and I like to peruse the information they base it on.
Excuse me interrupting...
I was beginning to believe that it is pointless spending time on MM posting research and discussion threads as they seem to disappear in every direction except the thread title and then get locked.
I wondered if I should continue to post knowing I risk the time and effort ending in a locked thread, or whether I should bother in the first place and whether there is anyone that feels this, (and others') research discussion topics worthy of scrutinising?
I believe in what I post and I know there are many others that do too.
I will continue to add posts, (if I am able) regardless of other distractions.
Sometimes they are innocent distractions, sometimes they have an agenda but I will not be reacting to contrived efforts to stop 'research' threads continuing.
Hopefully others agree with me and will also add information or discuss the topic to prevent it being locked.
I am interested to know what others think about how the blood/body fluid spots appeared in the locations shown in the OP photos.
Goncalo Amaral suggests it may have been resuscitation.
Anyone else think that and, if so, did it all happen Thursday night or was it earlier?
Last edited by HiDeHo on Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
It is not pointless, HiDeHo. And I, personally, appreciate your efforts and all the work you put in all this. And you're right about the off topic posts which get very interested threads locked. It is not going to happen to this pertinent thread even if I have to spend hours deleting off topic posts.
Thanks docmac.
I don't expect you to agree with me!
I am curious myself about how so many spots could appear surrounding an area that had enough
blood to seep through the grout of the tiles.
I have not come to any conclusions myself. I was just adding what Goncalo Amaral said.
What scenario could produce these spots?
However, I do believe this could be the place Madeleine died.
Spots on Curtains
Spots on Wall & Floor
Spots on back of sofa
|
