Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

Of course. This is speculation. But speculation saying "they gave her something." is different than saying "No they gave her this exact drug."

Hey Rolfe I'm looking at this as an unsolved mystery. One of the things that I've seen on that show (yes I know, dumb to base it on a show) but one of the common things I've seen when they catch someone is that the person's story doesn't add up.

Let's just take the simplest thing and look at what it means.

The mother has a three year old kid asleep in a hotel room. She goes in and the kid is not in the room. Why did she run out of the room saying "They've taken her!"

That wouldn't seem like an immediate conclusion. Unless she knew there was no way possible for the girl to get out of the room.

If anyone knows the layout of the hotel etc, I'd be interested in details.

To me if the kid wasn't in the room I'd think she'd woken up and come looking for me and might have wandered around the hotel. Why did she immediately know she was abducted unless she knew she couldn't have done that?

A few possibilities

The door was locked and the child couldn't open it.

Not true, the door was OPEN according to the parents?

It is impossible to open the door from the inside? Perhaps the handle was too high for the girl to reach?

Perhaps

Or the mother knew the girl wouldn't have woken up because she had been drugged?

Perhaps

Do you have any ideas?
 
Interesting, I found some detail that is odd, not sure if it is true. I will investigate further.

it has just been repoted today that it was 100% maddies DNA and they found her hair in the boot of the car...


oh and also kate mccann said as soon as she walked in the room she relised maddie had been "taken" straightway because the toy rabbit she always sleeps with had been put on a high shelf were no child could reach.

they got dogs to sniff the toy and apparently the dogs could smell death.
no work had been done on this toy such as DNA ect because obviously whoever took maddie had placed the toy on the shelf when taken maddie.
4 days later kate mcann washed the toy because it was "dirty"
why whould you do that if you knew it had evidence on it??
that was the only source of evidence and she destroyed it.
i cant beleive she washed it.
if that was a normal person they would of kept it because it had evidence on it and it was the last thing maddie touched so it would of been special.

my point is that i think she is trying to cover herself or someone up.
it all sounds too fishy to me.
there too much evidence against her.
Click to expand...


If this is true, doesn't that seem odd? If the toy rabbit had been placed on a high shelf where no child could reach, then it would stand to reason that the mother suspected the abductor put it there.

Why in the world would she wash it? And more, why would the police have not confiscated it immediately for DNA testing?


Madeleine's favourite 'Cuddle Cat' toy was 'placed out of her reach'

Last updated at 15:54pm on 12th August 2007

Madeleine's favourite toy, her pink 'Cuddle Cat, was taken from her arms and placed beyond her reach by her kidnapper, according to new reports.
This important evidence could point to the fact that Madeleine was actually taken alive.

According to a report in the Sunday Mirror, Kate McCann knew instantly that Madeleine had been abducted when she saw that the toy had been moved from her sleeping daughter's arms and placed on a ledge way beyond the four-year-old's reach.

The paper quotes a police source as saying: "When Kate tucked Madeleine up in bed earlier in the evening she had the toy tightly in her arms as she did every night.

"So Kate was terrified when she spotted it had been left in a place too high for her to reach.

"Kate also noticed the window was wide open and the shutters jammed up.

"It was because of these things that she had no doubt Madeleine had been kidnapped and she ran out to scream for help."

There was no sign of DNA or fingerprints left on the toy.
Click to expand...


Here's something more clarifying I found.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id60.html
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
Of course. This is speculation. But speculation saying "they gave her something." is different than saying "No they gave her this exact drug."

Do you have any ideas?
Click to expand...


The idea I have is that when a parent finds a small child missing from her bed, they may panic and do all sorts of things you don't see as rational. They may even be so distraught their recollection of what happened changes.

As far as sedating children is concerned, one shouldn't do it. But if one happened to be a medical professional, and one was going to do it, one would use temazepam. That is a complete no-brainer.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Erm,

No way. I respectfully disagree. If I knew my child was abducted and that the cuddle cat that she had held last, was the thing that the abductor had touched I would put it in an airtight container and never touch it.

This is DNA? These are doctors? It doesn't add up. It doesn't present guilt by any stretch, simply an unanswered question.
 
truethat said:
If anyone knows the layout of the hotel etc, I'd be interested in details.
Click to expand...


Good grief it's been all over the tabloid press and the TV reports and the documentaries.

And actually that information is probably reliable. Anyone relying on tabloid press reports for details of the actual case is insane. The most ridiculous stuff was being reported just because a journalist thought he heard someone say it, maybe. The McCanns have won libel actions against the worst of it, but that doesn't mean the rest is gospel.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe you really are annoying, you are like a creationist rejecting all the evidence pointing towards evolution

"That could just mean..."

"Well they might have acted irrational..."

Might this, could have that. Go and actually read the evidence, go look at all the reports that were reported in the portugese media and across europe but not the uk.

It is true and can be verified by a DVD released by portugese police with all the facts and evidence on it, which has been translated to english. Why would a toy which she was convinced was touched by the killer and had a cadaver odour on it (which means it must have been with a dead body for at least 2 hours), she washed it? Where is the logic there?

You have been fed a sob story by the media and now you cant see the wood for the trees. This isnt even a consparicy, there is evidence from the police that is publicly available, its just the media choose not to report it here.
 
.
Tell us, TT -- how does one train a dog to recognize the smell of a fresh death?

Your quote talks of a toy rabbit, which right there gives you an idea about its reliability.

And your own link about the Cuddle *CAT* has varying stories about where it was found.

Why do you think that a window on a ground floor apartment would be difficult to get through holding a child?

Do you even know who Jane Tanner is?

Who told you that water destroys DNA? Does this meant that every time you take a bath, you are causing yourself genetic damage?
.
 
Last edited:
Guybrush Threepwood said:
Do you have evidence for this bit (including the part in parentheses). Before you answer, you might want to read this Ben Goldacre piece on sniffer dogs
Click to expand...

Yes, there is lots of proof if you just read the websites i told you. Firstly you would find links to a few televised interviews and in papers where she stated that cuddlecat was up high so she knew someone must have put it there.

Im not going to look it up, since you cant be bothered, but if you look on the sites i told you, you will read about eddie and keela (i think) the brittish sniffer dogs, one can sniff human blood and the other a cadaver odour. They also have links to their success rates in cases and times their finding were used in court.

Also 2 hours if i remember correctly, is the minimum time it takes for the body to produce the cadaver odour, thats why i say 2 hours.

Instead of posting inane questions why dont you read the files on it first

http://www.mccannfiles.com you will find everything is cited
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/forum3.html

so much to read there, i suggest you go and do it.
 
TSR said:
.
And something you stated you could see yourself doing.

Which would then make you ... ?
.
Click to expand...

Just so everyone knows, TSR mistakenly thought I called him Stupid in another thread. Which I did not. I asked the mods to modify the post to clarify which they have done.

Yet for some reason TSR cannot let the matter drop.

So for TSR "Yes I truethat fully recognize that I am the stupidest poster who has ever posted on the internet." Not only that, in my real life I'm the stupidest person I know.

Hope that settles the matter. ;)
 
Rolfe said:
Good grief it's been all over the tabloid press and the TV reports and the documentaries.

And actually that information is probably reliable. Anyone relying on tabloid press reports for details of the actual case is insane. The most ridiculous stuff was being reported just because a journalist thought he heard someone say it, maybe. The McCanns have won libel actions against the worst of it, but that doesn't mean the rest is gospel.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Actually this is why I started the thread. You see so much posted it's hard to be sure which is misconstrued. For example you will note in the original quote regarding the "cuddle cat" the poster referred to it as a rabbit.

I never followed the story when it first came out, I was hoping time would allow things to be sorted more clearly.

I'm interested in this issue as an unsolved mystery.
 
Last edited:
TSR said:
.
Tell us, TT -- how does one train a dog to recognize the smell of a fresh death?

Your quote talks of a toy rabbit, which right there gives you an idea about its reliability.

And your own link about the Cuddle *CAT* has varying stories about where it was found.

Why do you think that a window on a ground floor apartment would be difficult to get through holding a child?

Do you even know who Jane Tanner is?

Who told you that water destroys DNA? Does this meant that every time you take a bath, you are causing yourself genetic damage?
.
Click to expand...


I never mentioned a dog at all. You might want to work on your reading comprehension. It will help avoid a lot of misunderstanding.

No I don't know who Jane Tanner is.

I never mentioned that a window would be difficult to get through. I never mentioned the window AT ALL.

I doubt very much a living creature can destroy DNA by taking a bath. Is this your argument?

That's ......wow.......


What I'm curious about is how many things don't add up. Again, I've stated which many have avoided in this thread

If I walked in to the room and knew the stuffed cuddle cat was the last thing that my child and the abductor had touched, I'd put it in an airtight container and never touch it.

I would not carry it around for it to be contaminated by other DNA. I certainly would not wash it.

This makes no sense to me.
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
I never mentioned a dog at all. You might want to work on your reading comprehension. It will help avoid a lot of misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
.
No, you just quoted someone saying that a dog smelled death, and opined if it was true, it was odd.

With just a bit of that, you know, research thingy, you would have known that what a sniffer can do is smell early stages of decomposition, starting roughly two hours after death, which fade after about a month.

Which means that there in no "if" involved, unless you are going to posit that Madeleine was dead for two hours before anyone decided to dispose of the body, and that the sniffers were brought in less than a month after.

Got any of that, you know, evidence thingy to support this?
.
truethat said:
No I don't know who Jane Tanner is.
Click to expand...
.
Thereby showing the quality of your research skills. Google the name in quotes and the word McCann.
.
truethat said:
I never mentioned that a window would be difficult to get through. I never mentioned the window AT ALL.
Click to expand...
.
You are correct, it was not you who posted that.

See? That's what people do when clarification is needed.

Now, can you explain what other "examples" of stupid "people" (note the plural -- that's the key point) were offered even in the 'clarified' post to which you refer in your other post?
.
truethat said:
I doubt very much a living creature can destroy DNA by taking a bath. Is this your argument?
Click to expand...
.
It may not have been in this thread, but ISTR you stating that you said water destroys DNA in reference to the stuffed rabbit ... err ... cat being washed. Can't be arsed to find it, so I withdraw that one as well.
.
truethat said:
What I'm curious about is how many things don't add up. Again, I've stated which many have avoided in this thread

If I walked in to the room and knew the stuffed cuddle cat was the last thing that my child and the abductor had touched, I'd put it in an airtight container and never touch it.

I would not carry it around for it to be contaminated by other DNA. I certainly would not wash it.

This makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
.
1. The reports you have linked to cast doubt as to where the cat/rabbit was found, so it is by no means clear that she knew that the abductor had touched it.

2. After five days, the *police* had not chosen to take it into evidence, so would it not be a reasonable thing for someone who was not a forensic specialist to assume it was *not* evidence?

3. You know for certain what you would do when your daughter goes missing? From personal experience? Do tell.
.
 
Last edited:
TSR

It is common practice on websites when quoting, to bold the part to which you are referring. In addition my comments reflected a question on the bolded part.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
truethat said:
If I walked in to the room and knew the stuffed cuddle cat was the last thing that my child and the abductor had touched, I'd put it in an airtight container and never touch it.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that I would not put it in an airtight container and never touch it. I might hold it obsessively, or might be unable to look at it. I might want to clean it if she'd spilled juice on it that day and I wanted to keep it nice for her, or if it was my routine and I wanted to keep up a semblence of normality; or I might want to never clean it.

I could just as easily say, that thinking in terms of preserving evidence is not a normal thought process I would expect from a parent.

But I think in these sorts of cases, people tend to think they know how a normal person should respond. And often, they're totally wrong about that.

As for leaving the kids in the first place, to me it does seem strange. But then, my oldest child is 5 1/2 and a very light sleeper. I don't think there's been a time in his life that I would have felt comfortable leaving him alone in an unfamiliar place and trusting he would sleep; I'd be afraid he would wake up and freak out. So that probably skews my perspective. Maybe parents of reliable heavy sleepers can pull that kind of thing off.
 
mushy said:
Im not going to look it up, since you cant be bothered, but if you look on the sites i told you, you will read about eddie and keela (i think) the brittish sniffer dogs,
Click to expand...

First of all, one t in British thank you.

Secondly, you clearly didn't go to Guybrush's link, which showed that sniffer dogs are more likely to take cues from their handlers than actually detect something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom