There are many, many “Oops… I think I’ve just confessed” moments in Kate McCanns book, “Madeleine”.
This is one of them.
On pages 241 and 242, this is what she says:
“Carlos still looked very concerned. There was a great deal we needed to discuss, he told us. He reiterated that the situation was not good. The PJ had a lot of ‘evidence’ against us, and I was certain to be made an arguida in the morning.
First he cited video footage the police had shot of the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs in apartment 5A and also around our hire car. I would be shown this on my return to the police station, he said. Presumably repeating what he had been told by the PJ, he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.
I was totally perplexed. Although this news, if true, seemed to add weight to the possibility that Madeleine had at the very least been physically harmed, unusually I didn’t dwell too much on the frightening implications. I can only assume this was because what we were being told didn’t make sense. If, as the PJ alleged, Madeleine’s blood was in the boot of our car, which we had not rented until 27 May, how on earth had it got there? Did this mean someone had planted it? I could see no other explanation. The police theory, it seemed, was that we had hidden Madeleine’s body, then moved it later, in the car, and buried it elsewhere.”
See the confession?
Let me clarify: “Did this mean someone had planted it?”
The simple fact that her mind finds possible to generate the idea that someone may have planted Maddie’s DNA in the boot of a car rented many days after her supposed abduction, means one and only one very important thing, and that is she’s telling us all that she knows that Maddie’s body was accessible from which to withdraw samples from and plant them somewhere else.
Let me put it this way.
If I was to tell you that I’d just seen a monkey dressed in a tuxedo smoking a cigar in the boor of your car, which of the following questions would pop immediately into your mind:
- has this woman lost it completely or is she on hard drugs or something?
- who put the monkey there, and who made a tuxedo that size?
Yes, the FIRST is the logical thought because of the impossibility and infeasibility of the whole idea.
But that is not what she seems to be asking, is it?
She goes for the SECOND, which she knows, for certain, to be POSSIBLE and FEASIBLE.
Possible because she knows the why, feasible because she knows the how.
Yes...those words means she was working on the theory, in her own mind, of how to get herself out of this situation, not the practicality of where DNA would have to have come from.
If she knew, as she keeps telling us she knows, that Maddie was ABDUCTED, and that the car had been rented much later, her reaction would have been “There’s a mistake, that’s IMPOSSIBLE!”.
How feasible would it be to plant Maddie’s DNA in ANY PLACE if she was indeed ABDUCTED?
Only by the abductor. She does say, on page 242 “The only conclusion I could draw was that we’ve been framed, though this seemed completely implausible”
Yes, but that would mean that the “ABDUCTOR would have abducted and killed Maddie, kept the body with him/her, took some samples from it, continued to maintain surveillance on the couple, and, ONCE AGAIN, would have to have waited for an opportunity whereupon they would have left their car unattended and unlocked.
Talk about conspiracy theories… because if it wasn't the abductor, who could have been?
Not the PJ, unless she's implying the PJ abducted Maddie...
And if it was the abductor, why such determination and vengefulness?
So, basically, she’s CONFESSING, very LOUDLY and CLEARLY, that she knows that there was a source from which that found DNA had come from: the unabducted Maddie’s body.