Hard Evidence

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barnaby said:
I don't think that Gerry thought the "abductor" got out with Madeleine while he was there. He was implying that he hid in the apartment until Gerry left then went out the window with Madeleine. Seems a bit silly of the abductor to go out of the window carrying a child to attract attention when he could have left by the door! :laugh:
Click to expand...

ALSO...can you imagine carrying either an alive, screaming, kicking child out a window or even if she had been drugged (say, chloroform, because any other drug would take t i m e) she would have been dead weight...how would you manage that? Therefore, if there was an abduction through the window there would have to have been an accomplice for Maddie to be passed to. In that case she would have to have been drugged, she would have been pitching a fit if not.

I am convinced that if Maddie was abducted she would have to have been drugged. No way could a stranger pick her up and carry her out without her waking. If an abductor had come in through the patio door then why not exit the same way?

From what I have read about apartments in the same complex (though not in the same building) a key is required to get out the front door, but I am not positive about that. If not, that would be even more bizarre....why go through the window when you could walk out the front door???

I suppose that the PJ would have checked to see if anyone bought chloroform in the previous week....???

:waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:
 
colomom said:
ALSO...can you imagine carrying either an alive, screaming, kicking child out a window or even if she had been drugged (say, chloroform, because any other drug would take t i m e) she would have been dead weight...how would you manage that? Therefore, if there was an abduction through the window there would have to have been an accomplice for Maddie to be passed to. In that case she would have to have been drugged, she would have been pitching a fit if not.

I am convinced that if Maddie was abducted she would have to have been drugged. No way could a stranger pick her up and carry her out without her waking. If an abductor had come in through the patio door then why not exit the same way?

From what I have read about apartments in the same complex (though not in the same building) a key is required to get out the front door, but I am not positive about that. If not, that would be even more bizarre....why go through the window when you could walk out the front door???

I suppose that the PJ would have checked to see if anyone bought chloroform in the previous week....???

:waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:
Click to expand...

Unless she had been well drugged by the parents to stop the crying from the previous nights that would sure be a bonus for any abductor!

Heres' a thought, who would have easy access to chloroform???????
 
colomom said:
ALSO...can you imagine carrying either an alive, screaming, kicking child out a window or even if she had been drugged (say, chloroform, because any other drug would take t i m e) she would have been dead weight...how would you manage that? Therefore, if there was an abduction through the window there would have to have been an accomplice for Maddie to be passed to. In that case she would have to have been drugged, she would have been pitching a fit if not.

I am convinced that if Maddie was abducted she would have to have been drugged. No way could a stranger pick her up and carry her out without her waking. If an abductor had come in through the patio door then why not exit the same way?

From what I have read about apartments in the same complex (though not in the same building) a key is required to get out the front door, but I am not positive about that. If not, that would be even more bizarre....why go through the window when you could walk out the front door???

I suppose that the PJ would have checked to see if anyone bought chloroform in the previous week....???

:waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:
Click to expand...

Aww, Colomom, you know that the PJ is far too incompetent to perform any tracks/tracings of who had access to or purchased a strong immediate sedative/anesthesia like chloroform, right?

And of course, passing or even carrying a sleepy or sedated child out the window--when you could leave by the front or back door--does that even make sense?
 
It seems like the "hard facts" part of this thread didn't last very long ..... :)
 
i had tried to make this thread discuss hard facts - but I suppose it was always going to be hard in this case

re the Express article - on the face of it yeah it looks bad - but until I see named sources , and not just the same old anonymous " sources said etc " I just have to lump it with all the other newspaper articles .

Sure maybe the FSS laboratory in Birmingham is secretly briefing an Express journalist - but somehow I doubt it . This lab is a world class establishment that carries out work for police forces across the country and abroad and somehow I just dont see them discussing critical evidence with anyone - including Martin Evans from the Express
 
The phrase that was used in the Daily Express was "possible contamination has been taken into account." The findings so far seem to support the police focus but the testing is incomplete & conclusions are premature. Yesterday it was said that retesting may not confirm premature conclusions and the case v. the McCanns would then fall apart. Some DNA markers are being found but not enough to say samples are a match to Madeleine. These statements from unnamed sources close to the lab were interpreted to both clear and to inculpate the parents yesterday, depending on the reporter. I mistrust statements lacking attribution, don't you? But even if one wants to rely on this hearsay, the statements were general and vague except to indicate that more work is being done and it is too early to say the results are in. Nevertheless, there is great scientific interest in all of the gathered DNA evidence, partial, meager and degraded though some of it is.
 
A friend of the couple said they were frustrated at being kept in the dark and just wanted the search for Madeleine to begin again in earnest.
Click to expand...
Maybe if they don't want to be 'in the dark' Kate should start answering some of those 40 questions the PJ need answers to.
 
~snip~
They have explained that the bodily fluids could have come from a pair of Madeleine’s sandals when the family moved villas. The hair could have got there from a pair of her unwashed pyjamas.


In addition, the car was also used to transport rubbish, including dirty nappies belonging to Madeleine’s brother and sister, from their villa to a nearby dump. ~end snip~ from the same Daily Express article. My bolding.

I put little stock in the Express. This is the same paper that said the Lab "leaked" that samples taken from the apt were not Maddie's before the first results were sent back to Portugal. But.... I have read in several articles that "bodily fluids could be from Maddie's sandals." My question is: what kind of fluids are found in sandals. In hot, dry heat I would think that you would be pretty hard pressed to find any "fluid" in a sandal, maybe some dried up remnants of sweat, but fluid???

Also, this is the first I have heard of a trip to the dump....... I find that interesting and wonder if there is any truth to it.........

Salem
 
Hi, can someone remind me what we have left, if we remove every 'fact' and 'statement' that comes only from 'a source' quoted in a tabloid? Some particularly troubling examples:

The 40 questions McCanns have supposedly refused to answer. Where did the number 40 come from?
McCann explanations for death scent on cuddle-cat and DNA in car. Is there an interview we can see where they said that?
The existence of death scent and DNA in car, for that matter. Does anyone have a video of the dogs 'going crazy'?
What Jane Tanner says she saw. Wouldn't that be a private deposition to the police? How do we know what she said? Has she given an interview?
What resort employees say they saw. Ditto.
What Russell said about vomiting child, and whether clean sheets were or were not requested the night of the disappearance.

Taking a bit of a 'devil's advocate' position here, what is it that we absolutely know to have been said or done?
 
Yes, the questions that K. McCann refused to answer are of interest & some of them have been published. One was: "Have you slapped Madeleine?" Kate's lawyers were present according to t.v. news, so this was not a free flowing interrogation. In written reports, I also read that she refused to describe the activities of the missing hours but I have seen her statements that belie such a refusal. She said she & Gerry played tennis after the water recreation with the children and that, together, they collected the children at the kids' club. Then, the family went to 5A (at six) and by 7:30 the children were put to bed. I have not seen any description of what the activity was between 6 and 7:30. Today the police are seizing 150 computers from 80 registered pedophiles according to The Telegraph.
 
If Oct. 16 reports on FSS results are true, it is fluid from a corpse that was found on the underside of a carpet covering the empty wheel well in the Renault Scenic. This led many to conclude that a body was deliberately positioned there, otherwise transfer material would have been atop the carpet. The footprint on the car's bumper makes more sense if you consider a corpse being placed in the well as that takes a bit of awkward shifting & is not equivalent to shoving bags into the rear of the vehicle.
 
So if the covering is carpet on both sides with a plastic barrier in the middle and the DNA was found between the cover and the wheel well, it appears as if someone wanted to hide a body under it. Not from sandal sweat, dirty diapers or transferring Madeleine's dirty clothes. Interesting.
 
That, if true, would not be something that could be explained by a normal chain of events.
 
Reading translations from the Portuguese provided us by colomom, primarily Correio da Manha today. That newspaper denies that there was a sz. 5-6 shoeprint with a visible blood imprint and reminds readers that the PJ went through those rooms in May & afterward and no such print was there--would have been noted if it were. The cadaver fluids were also questioned because those results are not available yet. I mean, is there nothing that we can credit?
 
It does appear as if it isn't just the Portuguese press making things up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 185 more.
Total: 1,935 (members: 186, guests: 1,749)

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
1,749
Total visitors
1,935
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,686
Messages
18,208,191
Members
233,929
Latest member
kezzx
Back
Top