madeleine mccann, two sided stories.

madeleine mccann, two sided stories.

many times i see people write their thoughts about how difficult it would be to get out of unit 5a with a body, and use that as the deciding argument for not looking at the parents, but explain a missing madeleine, as; so it must have been a abduction, taken by a stranger.

still if you think a bit longer, it means there would not be much difference, we still talk about a young girl, and alive or dead, that would not make much of a difference. just shy of 4 years old, even her mother told she was that same day able to carry madeleine back to unit 5a in the ocean club, because she was so tired after taking part in the kids club activities.

a relatively fresh body could easily be hidden as a sleeping child, because it was not even that warm, a blanket could hide a living or dead child easily in the same way.

transport in the arms of an adult would not ade that into a different observation. so isn’t is simply very strange to think that one way is more likely as the other, if you as a potential witness would look at it.

if it was that easy for an abductor, who could hardly be also a known face that this same week entered and exited unit 5a with or without children, why would it become very different and so much harder for the known faces of the parents or one of the friends, all that week already known as the tennis group by other tourists and workers at the ocean club, to walk out of unit 5a with a child in his or her arms.

a body of a dead child makes us very easily take more distance when thinking about handling that. still if you look a bit more serious, you must see that it did not matter much in the abilities needed to take a still pretty small and not that heavy body out of unit 5a. dead or alive and certainly alive and sleeping makes it even less different if you look to it as a task. our own emotions makes it different, and we go by common experiences that people hardly ever are found out to carry dead bodies of young children around, by that is makes it a hardly possible happening, but if you look more closely it would be very hard to tell the state a bundle with the shape of a young child is truly that of a child alive or dead.

because it is uncommon, does not mean it can not happen. but as a task is only to take out the body of a young girl out of unit 5a, there is nothing we can use to tell what we really have been looking at. we just fill that in from our own mind. by culture, habits and upbringing, we do not carry dead bodies through the streets. it is an unwritten rule that simply tells us you cannot do that.

but that same set of unwritten rules also tells us a lot of other things, only in itself that says that there is something possible that is against these unwritten rules.

there is nothing that can count out any average sporty still healthy adult not being able to carry a almost 4 year old child over a short distance. it also was already quite dark, and when seen the image would simply be explained by the observer.

jane tanner tannerman made her only see some naked feet. the smithman, the members of the smith family who could see the face of the child of their ‘male carrying a child’ observation, only saw closed eyes, and it was their mind that translated that into a sleeping child.

none of the witnesses could be expected even to tell if the child was certainly alive, or could she be dead too, simply because seeing males carrying bodies of young children through the streets is not something that would be in their mind.

tannerman was most likely, at least as told by operation grange, just another father, julian totman, carrying his own child. one that was alive and well.

steve carpenter also carried his own daughter home, but we only know these two children been alive and well, because both fathers told that, and both would be able to show a living child too.

and we do not know how madeleine was transported out of unit 5a.

a few possibilities are, simply carried alive, carried alive and sedated, carried already deceased, she could be in a blanket, a larger bag is very popular too, and even that would not have looked suspicious, thursday evening was besides the saturday a standard moment of arrival, around 21.00 hours that evening the minibus was used to bring some fresh arrivals in from the airport. the driver was even interviewed by operation grange in the later years.
so an adult with a filled, and a bit heavy bag would not be that strange a sight at all.
and the bag is only popular because the story of a blue, better a dark coloured bag, visible in the pictures of inside unit 5a made after arrival of the pj during the early hours of the night of may 4, 2007;

the bag is visible in the file belonging to kate mccann her interview as an arguida.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm

oversight; https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Processopdf10page64-KateArguidointe.jpg
detail; https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Processopdf10page65-KateArguidointe.jpg

a bag later that night gone, as to be seen in this picture, part of the forensic report;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2311.jpg

in itself this bag is not that important, but it is part of the talking about the bushes by the tapas 9 group.

but there are enough stories of even much older living children smuggled in suitcases and bags, that did look as ordinary as suitcases often can do.

and luckily most of us would not even think about putting children dead or alive in bags of suitcases, it is simply not even part of our way of thinking. that is very different for someone that has a different made up mind, and even a very different reason to transport a child.
but the problem with our minds and thoughts is, that other minds can produce other thoughts and do not stop there but do something we never would do.

but there is no logic in saying it is hardly possible to take a body out of unit 5a, but taking a body out by a stranger we call an abductor must have been very likely to be doing exactly that instead.

and there can be other means used to, to get a body out, there been buggies available in the stairways to the upper floors, as matt oldfield told us in his statements. a garbage bag could keep around 15 kg of weight, which this child could have met, a laundry basket or bag. a shopping trolley.

there are simply no witness observations that are sure enough to tell they saw a transport of this specific child. or other forms of transport that could fit the body of a child of this age.

so it is very hard to decide what must have taken place on a misconception.

and is it already that important to invest much time in how she got out of unit 5a. we already can safely state she did that. but that is also the only fact in that segment of the case, it still lacks all needed information about why, who, when, and the how will by that still a big question too. as it stands there is simply nothing that can be of use to include or exclude anything at all.

we cannot even be 100% sure if she was alive or dead when she left unit 5a.
if she was unharmed but only take out, it gets difficult to explain the dog findings.

the dog findings could steer to a most likely died in unit 5a, but based on work with these kind of dogs and decomposition of blood itself, and how good both these dogs were, i even step away to accept that these findings only be there if she died there and then, if she came to harm before leaving unit 5a, with blood loss, i cannot rule that fully out too.

the concept of cadaver dog and martin grime already explained that to us in his reporting statements, eddy was not a cadaver dog, he was a victim recovery dog, he was trained on all components of human remains, and now the studies done in more recent years about decomposition of human blood left behind, the blood found behind the blue sofa that seeped into the grout could still fit a dog of this quality.
also because blood is easier to come by, it can simply be donated with consent of its donor, that still in itself will stay alive after donating the stuff, as soon as blood leaves a body it will start to decompose too. the chance is even higher the british dogs have been more often trained on decomposing blood or a mixture of blood and other simple to donate human remains like a baggy of dentist waste, that are often used as training aids, and easier to get.

so on my list harmed with blood loss is back on it again too.

it is a misconception that you need a full body to get the scent of death. everything in the human body will decompose and can produce the scent of death. there is still no easy model to tell how much is needed and what circumstances will be of influence, moisture is one factor by smaller amounts, because we know from other fields of science that too little will make breaking down by microorganisms impossible, and even autolysis, can be hampered.

there is very little information in the pj files to even start to look for possibilities in these more technical aspects. this is why thinking about all these aspects asks for the use of margins.
science itself never even dares to get out with 100% sure, they always put in at least 1% for something we maybe not know off, but maybe one day we will.

why the work offered by perlin would not answer the big question.

much is said and little done, when in a podcast of mark saunokonoko dr. perlin from cyber genetics and owner of the dna analytical program true allele was interviewed.

you can find the podcast episode, it is no. 5 called dna in this link;
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Podcast/

it is certainly worth the effort, but it still is not the most important question in this case in connection with the dna finds.

it is great to be sure if the question about the dna of madeleine, is in both samples or not.
but that answer itself is not enough.

knowing who is the donor of dna in itself does not solve a possible crime at all. that identity is only part of the story. you still need to connect the place you take a sample from to that donor.

and there is a known problem in this case, because the sample from behind the sofa is from a place, inside unit 5a, madeleine had access before that thursday may 3, she had a legally sound reason to be their, she was part of the family that rented unit 5a as part of their holiday packet.
and there could be many reasons why she left dna traces behind there.

so the connection is not explained by telling the dna is indeed of madeleine mccann.
we talk about older samples, about very minute samples.
and we have no idea what the origins of both samples are, and that is a question that needs an answer to connect other possibilities, including that madeleine was indeed the victim in something, i write something because if we end up with a true accidental death, this is not a sample of a crime scene, or part of a crime.

proving that she had an accident itself is not enough to connect it to a next stage, where madeleine becomes part of a crime, the accident is no crime in that hypothetical story. all criminal matter will only start after that.

the accident can be used as a motivation to follow on with criminal intent in hiding a body.
but for that you need not only the identity of madeleine by dna, there must be information about an accident that did happen in a certain period of time.

and for that the most important question that puts weight into that is, what material of her remains was this dna originated from. skin cells do often contain dna but you can lose them always and everywhere around you, they do not tell much about how it got there to find.
saliva has the same, in itself it has no cells and no nuclear dna, but it can contain cells from the inside of the mouth, but this also can be left behind in an innocent way.

blood would be different, blood loss is not something that just happens, you need trauma, to make blood get outside a body. not news to the defence lawyer of the mccanns, who solved that already at the end of gerry mccanns arguido statement;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

-- The lawyer for the defence says he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn't know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

with such an easy repair, a possible dna match that tells it was from madeleine, it puts it back in the same basket as dna from skin cells and saliva.

an innocent reason why it was there to find in first instance.

so if you end up in a court with such results and reasoning, you have to have much more than dna that is a match to the identity of a supposed victim.

and for that you need first of all to know what the origins of the dna are, and it does not stop there, because of a reasonable explanation of the defendant.

so you have to have amounts of blood, the nature of the surroundings, what could put doubts on blood loss in that exact place.
the first can be the amount of blood, this is never answered, because the grout and tiles are never tested at that time, unknown about later on.

another fluid that can contain dna and could be found after accidental trauma and intentional trauma brought upon a victim lis liquor, the fluid from brain and spine, if that is the origin of this sample with the dna it would be hard to get an simple explanation, because of the serious type of trauma needed to get it outside a body. it is not something you would shed around during normal daily activities.

for the samples from the rented car we need that type of information too.

blood and liquor are not that easily be transferred from a victim to a car, that was not in use during the time this victim could have died.
but skin cells and even saliva could be much harder to include in an ongoing crime that started after the death of the victim.

kate and gerry mccann already have given their explanation, there was material in that car, that once belonged to madeleine, so skin cells could theoretically be from transfer during transport.

blood and liquor from brain and spine would not easily explained in that car, during that time.
and this sample also lacks its origin in where it comes from.

a result that proves beyond reasonable doubt that madeleine was the donor, does not tell anything more , that can be used to connect madeleine herself or her body to that car.

knowing if the results, wo indeed never excluded madeleine as a possible donor, indeed been of madeleine, can at best end up a lot of discussions about the case, but even that marginally, but that is not a sound reason to test it. it would not tell the investigation itself more than they could already guess from it.

original substance that carried this dna would make the results of the ffs lab, already much more usable if you have to handle this case in court.
all said and done earlier brings the burden only up. so that mean you have to get first answered where did the dna comes from, and after that who is the donor of this dna.

dr. perlin can work from the original digital data copy of the work done by the ffs, that going by the information in this podcast is somewhere, but not where exactly now.

that is the problem with dna, in itself it tells not so much a story, and even less when it is from a sample taken from a place the supposed victim could have had indeed access before the evening of may 3, 2007.
you need to connect the dna to a scene of death, there was not a body left to take that for granted.

and over 17 years after the facts, there still can be looked at redoing a lot of material again, with latest science driven knowledge.
you cannot simply reuse the earlier samples, the bits of a sample to test for dna, make that these bits are simply gone, only the read out of these specific samples will be out there. if they can find it…

identity would not tell how the dna was to get there and be there to find. it also does not tell a story either. it does not connect madeleine into a following crime.
you do not want to end up with easy explanations of the defence during court.

with only a known identity as dna in these samples matching madeleine as a donor, can not break that. you cannot disprove a nose bleed.
and the defence lawyer saw it common, because an earlier question that could harm gerry mccann was;

During this interview several films of a forensic nature showing sniffer dogs were shown where their signalling can be seen regarding indication of cadaver odour and traces of blood also human, and only of a human nature, as well as the comments made by the expert in charge of the procedure.
-- After viewing the films and after the signalling of cadaver odour in their room next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa against the window in the living room, he says that he has no comments, neither has he any explanation for this fact.
--- Also, the dog that detects human blood signalled human blood behind the sofa mentioned above, he says that he cannot explain this fact.
-- Regarding the cadaver odour in the car that was rented at the end of May, (xx)-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.
--- Regarding the presence of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has not explanation for this fact.
-- When confronted with the fact that Madeleine's DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations also described before, he says that he cannot explain.
--- When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments.

the ‘no comment’ about injured was not safe enough, so an extra few words about a nosebleed made that stronger. that is why you want to have a lawyer.
i mean if gerry had used something alike his later on, no, and that is an emphatic no’ comment used that would be quite harmful for a defence.

a two sided story, in all ways.

the case of madeleine mccann is one that covered the world, first the ultimate innocent victimhood does count, it is normal to see young children as innocent, they have no say in much during their life, and can not be held responsible for anything that they end up in.

and maybe it is also a form of communal guilt, not being able to even protect the children in society. and we do see that more as a burden when we can recognise ourselves a bit more in the specific victim, there is little story before the holiday in may 2007, just an ordinary white and blond girl. the only thing for the onlooker that made her stand out was her disappearance. everyone was a almost 4 year old child and even when we not always keep an very active memory of that time, we can still get the picture of having been that child.

in this case the parents at first glance belonged not to the poor, both medical doctors, a house to pay for, nothing that could tell of a typical bad parent, the story that made it different, the one of leaving madeleine and her two even younger siblings, twins of 2 years old alone in a unit in an building without any security and even leaving the back door open, so they could sneak in from time to time to hear if all was quiet. a back door that with some stairs ended at a little gate to a public road. in another country. just because they had their holiday to have too.

so far most of us will have heard the same story. because it all took place in a country called portugal there was no tradition to have press conferences and briefing the media, their stance has always been that justice works in silence, and only the police can work criminal cases.
but it was not known because of that, that there were doubts on the side of the police.

we as a public were told the morning of may 4, 2007 by the family back home in the uk, that there was a break in in the unit, the shutters been jemmied open, the window opened, the door wide open, and a girl taken.
at that same moment the portuguese police already did know this was not true at all, the first hours it was also looking for a young girl that maybe left on her own and got lost. Police officers, workers of the ocean club and many other locals and holidaymakers searched as much as they could.

the parents saw only one possible cause, their child was taken. but the first responding officers did not see anything that showed signs of a break in, or other disturbance that could tell of someone getting into unit 5a. there was very early on already contact with the pj, the police force there that works serious crimes, but they had to come from further away, and a lot to organise. not only the forensic searchers, but also dog units and others.

even before the pj could arrive there was already contact from the uk embassy with the head of the pj. it was the result of the family back home phoning in to the home and foreign offices for help in a case of an abducted child.

the result of communication from the family back home, the parents and their friends who called in the media, brought on a media hurricane. the local media, and some of the expat media was joined by the odd reporter who could be reached and a growing mountain of media started from breakfast time on may 4, 2007 around block 5.

the pj did not communicate with the media directly, the media used all who would talk and could talk, the manager john hill telling there was no sign of a break in was hardly heard.

the girl was not found, a vast area was searched for her, by foot, with search dogs, from horseback and cars, many volunteers from locals and holiday makers and all portuguese government services, like fire brigade and forestry, and police forces. the portuguese marine searched the coastal waters, helicopters been flying over.

no sign of the girl. house to house calls and talking to as many of the holidaymakers and locals took off, many of the holiday makers would fly out on the morning or early noon the next day, may 5, 2007.

until the late evening of may 3, 2007 praia da luz was just getting ready for the coming summer season, most of the year a small coastal village, once living from the fishery that was taken over slowly from the sixties on to tourists. outside the summer season holiday crowd, it only had besides locals a mostly british expat community, immigrants really, they had no want to go back to the uk, they enjoyed a life of sun and beaches.

that first news was taken over by the news outlets of other countries, and quickly it grew out to a story that was not everywhere told the same. in most french national papers it was out in a classic form, short informing stories, hardly pictures, where the uk it looked more like a christmas tree version of news. leading with their tabloids and no longer only on paper, but also online, the dutch papers kept it more in between. germany bild gave it room, but most other media it was in the also in the news today sidelined section.

there was little news beyond no news to tell. the media hang out in the daytime around block 5 and the entrance to the tapas bar. in the evening most found their way into the many bars to work out the next story. every one who dared to say 2 words or more could become breaking news, part of a live blog, or moulded in just nonsense.

the mccann parents became celebrities, who held court for a fresh picture for the next story, gave interviews. many stories from these weeks were just rubbish. witnesses who never existed, at least besides stories in the news no one ever has heard anything about them.

this seems to be also the first time in history the public could talk back to the rest of the public, and did with effort. facebook, many now long gone web options for social media, twitter was just born, forums were still hot, blogging became an option to tell your opinion to the world. and it made a hornets nest of this case, where old media conquered against and with the public social media.

only the result was a quest for details no others had, many now known to be myths born in these months. most are still going around, or just resurface from time to time, many of the old (social)media are long gone, so it is not even easy to trace them back.

but the result of this all is that there still is a want for news in this case, at least the big media thinks that, they never really ask the public, they just decide what we have to want. only because of so many sources lots of us the public have never heard the same story about this case. the original sources often gone or hidden in the dark sides of archives, that can no longer be used to check on things.

the public that kept an eye on this case, and that is like the weather forecast, months of waiting until it will rain, or the suns comes back, promising snippets of a special and rare phenomena and usually getting back under a cover of just the same old again.

but none of us have probably heard the same story about this case, news about the case of madeleine itself stopped long ago. the investigation was shelved in portugal in the summer of 2008, it got back in attention and mass covering when operation grange did their remit and version of investigating, but all in all never real news that would solve the case, or at least would answer one or more of many, many questions.

what did happen was that there kept many sideshows up and running and it still does, none have anything to do with the case they sprouted from. only the name of madeleine mccann written or spoken in it is the connection. new generations of the public pick up on the case, but get easily lost in these side shows.

there are of course many different theories out, some get more room to be found, but none has brought an answer to what happened with that little girl called madeleine.
and now 17 years later we most likely have all a slightly to enormously different story in our heads.

the media, social and traditional decides a lot in that, and there is often not much drive to bring the only true story, for some like the traditional media in the uk it is not even possible, they are just bound and gagged by law and order and doing the math between their money and their legal advisors.

and it does not go better if it comes from much further away. i mean the aussies are told there is a murderer of madeleine mccann, where in other countries it is known that there is a guy around that the germans try to fix up, but can still not charge or bring to court. or others live with even never knowing about it, in greece it was already very old news, they know of it from 2017 on, through a national paper, but the rest missed that. that is of course google at fault, because it does not like other languages besides english very much as a standard.
so the uk missed that and had to wait like most other countries in europe and the world until the germans put it out on tv in june 2020.

the same guy that, now already over 4 years old, makes the lives of all reporters of tabloids and documentary makers into a misery , because they have to produce at least weekly a new piece that connects enough to put that name of a girl lost in. even ai is present, but both versions are not very talented in it, like google most do not understand much of other languages. you have to wait at least a week before you can start to believe what gets out.

and at the start of the case around madeleine mccann most of the news was generated through the parents, or their adversaries, together they did give a running commentary. even paid a company to be in the daily headlines for many months. on their own or as a pair they never could take it off. so they made use of a pr guru, who would explain what wrong thoughts we all had, into what was the line to preach about. what is good enough for the first guy of england and wales i think, was just right for the parents.
i must say the last impression of the head pr guru looked a bit as the case where it all started about, old and dreary,

so from;

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-madeleine-mccann-suspect-109779812.html?imageid=59DAA744-B80B-4F72-B640-F2FC3787D884&p=316445&pn=13&searchId=4d2b4cb59a9271196e8c296fa9d8ee1e&searchtype=0

into this;

https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PRC_153591938.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=480%2C252

still less changed than the most promising suspect, but even the mccann family could not remember he still was their spokesperson anymore.

but this case is in itself not very difficult, there is still a large gap to being able to understand it fully. what makes it hard to check even the basics. most of the answers are simply only known in a very small circle, and that is not including most heads that talk about it on the telly, or put names above written pieces.

the most important source of information still are the pj files, but they are often kept out of sight. the translations made so we non-portuguese speakers can use them as a source are never disputed. even operation grange advised a couple of writers to just read the pj files online. the originals are next to it, so you can always do that job yourself if trust is an issue.

but that is where the original story still is, without make up and rehearsals, autocue or training in front of mirrors.

and yes it is possible your memory plays you a trick or two, or that you did read somewhere, something that you always found strange, but it is always nice to check it before you keep it around.

and some of the clowns who made up stories in the first few months, because they had promised a story to their editor, or just a few beers to much and brought only works of fantasy out, they often return in the news over and over again. a lot is still there, you can check it, the news outside the pj files is with some luck still there in the nigel part on gerrymccannblogs, or ask for a source, do not walk to easily into a story, that was made to you as their audience, instead of the real story.