
Madeleine McCann: Bedroom Pictures, DNA And Kate McCann Questions
THE hacks are going over the police reports on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Are we looking for clues? Or are we just looking? Come one voyeur, come all:
A British scientist warned DNA tests on a sample from Kate and Gerry McCanns’ hire car were inconclusive just days before the couple were made suspects, official police files have revealed.
In an email dated September 3 2007 John Lowe, from the major incidents team at the Birmingham-based Forensic Science Service (FSS), said it was impossible to conclude whether the material came from their daughter Madeleine.
In an email dated September 3 2007 John Lowe, from the major incidents team at the Birmingham-based Forensic Science Service (FSS), said it was impossible to conclude whether the material definitely came from their daughter Madeleine.
Four days later Portuguese detectives named the McCanns “arguidos”, or formal suspects, in the child’s disappearance, citing DNA evidence as grounds for their suspicions.
Such are the sort of facts and opinions:
THE 48 QUESTIONS KATE DIDN’T ANSWER
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does ‘we let her down’ mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. ‘Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.’
Wanna see the pictures of the bedroom? What good can it do? What harm..?
Posted: 4th, August 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (284) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments





August 4th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
M&A……………. Just out of interest, why was my post cut when I included the link to the info? I was merely giving a short cut to the piece I mentioned!
If you scroll down to under the picture of the stairs, its there. exactly as I cut and pasted with a reliable link.
————–
M&A
Artemis
It would help if you would tell me which post you are talking about. I haven’t cut any posts.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Whoops, is this it?
‘Meanwhile SOL and SIC report that the Judiciary Police (PJ) guarantee that the McCanns have moved the furnitures inside the bedroom and that some evidences were manipulated to create a scene of abduction and to conceal the scene of death: “There are strong indicators that they have altered the crime scene, moving some of the furniture.” the Judiciary Police report concludes “that the modification was done intentionally in an attempt to for the simulation of a scene of abduction.’
August 4th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
The real question is why the mods who haven’t blocked Gandolf keep continuing to attempt to block him, very 3arses!!!!!!!!!!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lxn48wSiCzg
———–
M&A
Artemis
I have carefully inspected the spam and the cybervoid and there is no mention of Gandolf in either of those places.
I therefore conclude you are being dishonest in this post.
Administrator: I will add this. We NEVER strangle in the dark or in silence. If you are blocked, which has happened, you are always fully aware of the reason and have often engineered the position where a blocking is unavoidable. I regard each time as a failure on our part, but you repeatedly play an unfair game. We are busy tonight and we don’t have time to mess about.
I have no knowledge of the 3As and care to know even less. Comparing this site to that particular outfit is akin to the Pope apologising for years of priestly abuse…hollow and a stupid gesture.
Do me, the Mods and the fellow posters a favour and stop buggering about. When you debate fairly and with vigour you are excellent. When you whine like this I despair and really do believe there are a number of alter-egos involved with your name. It is worth remembering only you can let yourself down. -agw
August 4th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
abduction… as I always said, in the patio doors, out of the front door. Easy as that.
Whoops…. the forensics report says that the match could be to Madeleine and could aso be to several of their own scientists. Very accurate. Not.
<<<<<>>>>>>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041216/Pictured-The-bedroom-Madeleine-McCann-vanished-Portugal.html
(sorry, off out now so no time to TINY URL)
August 4th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Of course, entirely hypothetically, it would be very unfortunate were it to transpire that the FSS has given evidence on other cases involving a match on 15 out of 19 markers, where it has been suggested that there was some degree of certainty that the match was indeed genuine and not by chance.
That would be a possible explanation for why it was reported that the British authorities had sought to persuade the Portuguese Court that the memo should not be released.
Entirely hypothetically, of course…
August 4th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Apologies Chenier wires crossed-M&A-at 7:38 BF says that Sky are saying no abduction-is this correct-I can’t find it-should we have a source for this?
August 4th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Well Garth, when I was abducted I left a note and a little map - I was too young for a mobile !!
August 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
is the real garth back yet then?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
whoops Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Dear Chenier-say that SKy says there was no abduction as I believe was stated earlier by BF.
—————
I really don’t know; I’m not BF, and I haven’t said a word about it.
I have been commenting on the DNA question, and pointing out that I would actually pay money to see the whole email, as opposed to edited highlights…
August 4th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
gerry and kate ; sue me now , for all i have said previously and cannot be bothered to repeat , take me now please , pronto to court - not anorak - me - NOW
August 4th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Poor Garth seems to have been left in the lurch, I agree Chatelaine.
Given that the poor child would have been kicking and struggling, and the room being completely dark, how did this abduction happen in such a confined space?
Garth?
Cool and Calm?
Maria?
Rasputing?
Gandolf?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Jass
Will you stop squeaking!
August 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Dear Chenier-say that SKy says there was no abduction as I believe was stated earlier by BF.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
JULIE! The spelling mistakes are intentional - to make us read more closely!
It’s a psychology trick - to get our most avid and focussed attention -and you must admit - it works!
August 4th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Julie Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
———–
FFS………… about the new theory you daft bat.
Now go to bed. You need your sleep.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
My gavel is splintered - with banging my coffee-table as I sentence Hotand choppy to three years hard labour for saying it’s OK not to help the bizzies.
It’s no wonder that I am not well!
A lot of people will get a harsher sentence tomorrow because of you Hotandchoppy!
I will do it deliberately and tell you about it on here tomorrow night and you will feel guilty.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
naheim flash Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
To me that bed does not look like a small child had slept - let alone being abducted from it !!
————
Tell us flashy, how should the bed have looked after an abduction?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Garth Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I was taking the michael my darlin. Now take your thumb from out your bum and engage your brain.
________________________________
Sooo, you’re now admitting that all the crap you’ve been spouting from that foul mouth of yours could actually NOT have happened. Do we now take this to mean that you no longer believe there could have been an abductor? (Oh and does the “my darlin” bit mean our wedding preparations will soon be in full swing again?) I’ll choose to ignore your last sentence as you’re obviously a tad stressed at seeing the photos ……
August 4th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
“Crude” Garth always comes to the fore when he’s trying to dodge a difficult question.
Garth, it isn’t difficult, and lots of us would like to know….
If you have a new abduction theory, could you tell us?
If not, can you explain the old theory, in the light of the cot obstacle course and the shuttered windows?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
whoops Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Chenier-I have looked on the SKY website and i don’t see anything that says that-can you break the habit of a lifetime and in your superior knowledge tell me where-coz i can’t find it-maybe I am looking in the wrong place-if not Chenier -anyone.
———-
Say what, dear Whoops?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Garth
I was even gonna concede that having seen the photos the window (from the outside) looks a lot lower than I imagined….
But it’s still not feasable!
August 4th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Châtelaine Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Dear all. Have some patience with Garth. He hasn’t been completely briefed yet on the new situation
———–
Tell me Chatterbox………….. what’s the new situation?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Chenier-I have looked on the SKY website and i don’t see anything that says that-can you break the habit of a lifetime and in your superior knowledge tell me where-coz i can’t find it-maybe I am looking in the wrong place-if not Chenier -anyone.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
chenier
But since this particular mother put her duty of having a good time with her friends above her duty to her children, it’s not so surprising that she put saving her own skin above answering questions that could have helped find out what happened to her daughter.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
To me that bed does not look like a small child had slept - let alone being abducted from it !!
August 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Garth Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
chenier Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
————–
Oh ffs Chenny. They could have been stitching her up for she knew. Especially telling her about all this so called DNA as if it were true. Dont you think? I know i bleedin would.
You surprise me luvvy.
——————
I very much doubt that, Garth.
As I have made crystal clear, I would like to see the full text of that email.
I’m assuming there is a reason why the British contingent went to court in Portugal to try and get it kept secret.
‘“We cannot answer the question: is the match genuine, or is it a chance match.”
There was a match; that much is certain…
August 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Dear all. Have some patience with Garth. He hasn’t been completely briefed yet on the new situation
August 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
lie Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Garthy, is this fantastically new thought-out theory going to take long? I need to go to bed and practice the birds and bees lesson that mommy taught me. C’mon, c’mon I’d like to go to bed in a good mood, giggling my way off to dreamland …….
===========
I was taking the michael my darlin. Now take your thumb from out your bum and engage your brain.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Why was Kate even refusing to say whether she checked inside the wardrobe?
This was question two, was after she refused to say what she did after finding her daughter had disappeared.
What sort of mother would do that?
An innocent, anguished one?
PS: Garth, still keen to know what is your new theory in place of the one that the abductor slid Madeleine out of her bed without disturbing the sheets, then zig-zagged over/past/through the two occupied cots, onto the other bed, then through the shuttered window.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
As PeterMac said yesterday: the innocent have the right to be heard and the guilty have the right to remain silent …
I think he had the same lecturers as I had!
Bless Petermac - a dulcet and sophisticated voice of reason!
Not like Hotandchoppy - Upside down thinking or what?
I am retiring to my chamber now to sum up - again!
My wig is frazzled!