Paint Stripper and the Open window

I'm interested in the fact that Raymond Hewlett used paint stripper to subdue his victims. Could this explain the open window? Also the fact that the child who was seen by the witnesses being carried by the man appeared to be sleeping? Could it also explain the twins deep sleep?

In 1972, he was jailed for a year after raping a 12-year-old girl he had lured into his car and knocked out with paint stripper.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20020113/ai_n9711073/

The drug, gamma-butyrolactone, also known as GBL, is commonly used as a paint stripper, rust remover, or industrial solvent

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/815705/death-prompts-new-party-drug-warning

It has always been my opinion that a child in pyjamas at night in May near the sea would be wide awake by the cold. I always said that that child seen by Jane and the Smiths was either dead or drugged.

Having said that, I found in the files that exams were carried out on Madeleine's bed the very night she disappeared in order to trace vestiges of drugs, and none were found. These were specific drugs, don't know if a different type would also be detected.

I don't know how paint stripper would be used to drug a child. Would it be put on a cloth and used to cover the child's nose and mouth? In that case, it might not come in contact with anything other than the abductor's hand and the child's face. But the fumes might linger in the room for a bit - hence the open window to get rid of the smell.

I have always believed that a spray anaesthetic was used through the slightly opened window, to drug the children. Kate and Gerry were amazed that neither of the twins woke up with all the fuss of people coming and going when Madeleine was found to be missing. Paint strippper it may have been. It is used in many robberies here in Spain and in European countries, and on overnight trains to put the inhabitants in sleepers to deep sleep.

But wern't samples taken of the twins hair and tested, and the tests showed they were not drugged? Wouldn't this chemical also show up in these tests? Similar tests on Shannon Mathews showed she had been repeatedly drugged for over twenty months. That's not to say Madeleine wasn't drugged, but it would seem unlikely the twins were.

I immediately thought of this with the paint THNNERS and the window (It would NOT be paint stripper, paint stripper is caustic and would have caused burns, both to Madeleine and the abductor.)

I actually think this is a possibility and would explain a lot.
We have here a person in Hewlett that has used paint thinners to subdue his victims.
We have a situation where most people had already thought that the abductor had used some kind of sedative and now we have a possible answer.

I have written on here before that I thought there was a possibility the abductor had used something like chloroform, but this smells longer than thinners and would not have dissipated as quickly as thinners.

If the abductor had just used the thinners on a cloth and hovered it over the nose and mouth without touching the twins skin, or Madeleine's bedclothes, then the odour would have disappeared with the window open quite quickly as thinners is part gas/alcohol and it would have evaporated, however, I think an odour would have remained on the bedding, how much would depend on the amount dropped.

The reason why drugs were found in Shanon Mathews hair was because she had ingested them over a long period of time and also it was the type of drug administered. I doubt very much if the twins were give a whiff of some substance once that it would have shown up in the hair.

Also the tests on Madeleine's bed were not appropriate, if thinners was drop on it it would have evaporated and probably would not even have left a mark, I doubt this would have show up on any tests the forensics took on the scene.

The bedding was a huge error, the whole lot should have been removed bagged, labelled and sent for forensic testing, *including the mattress* but it WASN'T, the cleaning staff were allowed to remove it and launder it!
(Nice one Goncao Amaral, you pulled a blinder there, preventing anyone discovering anything about the abductor) Another deliberate error?

Rosemary, I am very interested in what you said about Spain, did you mean that it is common for paint thinners to be used as some kind of weapon in Spain, or was it some other substance that you know about?

It certainly isn't paint stripper rosiepops, but someother kind of sedative, odourless I think. Trinny and Susanah wrote about this. They had been robbed on an sleeper train overnight. Woke feeling a bit dazed that's all. Talking of which my daughter and son in law en route by sleeper to Rome from Paris 2 nights ago were robbed of all wallets, I never thought to ask if they felt dopey! Please be warned of this type of thing.
It is well known to the Police over here and has been sprayed through open bedroom windows in house robberies.

Is it not the same active ingredient which is used in paint thinner and paint stripper - just different quantities perhaps? I did actually see that one article about Hewlett described it as thinner rather than stripper.

I have had paint stripper accidentally splashed in my eyes once, and my God did it burn! I was off work for a couple of days. Even if you get it on your skin it will burn and make you run for the nearest cold water tap. I can't see how it could be used as a soporific, without causing damabe to both the abductor and the victim. Thinners, on the other hand, I have also used, when painting my car, and it could, if used sparingly, have a knock-out effect. That's why you have to wear a mask, and not just one of those swine flu ones but one with a cannister filter on it when using it.

But, having said all that, I am still wary of connecting this man with Madeleine. It could be him, but it may also not be. Please let's all be careful not to build our hopes up too high too soon, or we could all fall very hard if this lead goes nowhere. I DO remain convinced, totally, that the detectives are on to something, however, and this guy could just be a scarlett kipper, to put the real mark off his guard.

Vee8 - I agree it's crucial to be cautious and not to be tempted to jumpt to any conclusions unless they are solidly justified by facts.

I just hope this guy doesn't snuff it before he can tell police all that he knows. That would be a very cruel twist.

christabel wrote:Vee,

I googled paint thinners and had this off Wikipedia. It seems not all paint thinners are what we think!

Methyl ethyl ketone

Physical and chemical properties
Physical properties:
Methyl ethyl ketone is a colourless liquid with a faint sweet odour.


http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/57.html

I use MEK all the time at work. I don't know who wrote the wikipedia piece, but I can tell you it doesn't have a faint, sweet odour! In fact, take a good sniff and it will choke you in a heartbeat! Technically it's not a paint thinners but a degreasant, used for cleaning the gloop of years of neglect off the equipment we work on. We have to be very carefull when using it, with proper ventilation and proper gloves, though being rufty tufty men, we think gloves are for wimps, but that's by the by. If MEK had been used you would smell it as soon as the door was opened, especially in a small room like that bedroom, it has a powerful, sting the back of the throat smell, and will disolve most plastics on contact. It certainly would act as a very effective soporific, but it would also leave the victim with a powerful headache afterwards.

I had a legal fight with a painter once about his use of Thinner in a special paint .. long story, I won. But I can tell you it leaves virtually no trace/or nonewhatsoever of itself and any trace would depend on what material, if any in this case, that it touched.

Marilyn

I once posted my view on this open window on Sky, and it was that I was convinced that the window was opened from the inside to allow for the smell of some drug (I mentioned chloroform then) to disappear, nothing to do with breaking in or taking Madeleine through it. It has always been my convincement that there were some very volatile substances involved, so that all the children were mildly knocked out. That would explain also why the twins were so 'sound asleep' during all the comotion.

First comment: Kate's digital impressions opening the window. They were on the glass. The intruder would not slide the window that way, s/he would rather use the handler, and probably wearing some hand protection (gloves, etc). IMHO the impressions were made later for instance when a distressed Kate was explaining to someone (GNR...) how shw found the window open, and she probably doesn't recall that mouvement.

Second comment: if this method was used, then Jane's sighting is compromised, as definitely there wasn't enough time to allow Gerry out, knock Madeleine out, leave through the front door and be at the point where Jane spotted him. I must admit that my opinion on Jane's sighting is that she did not see a man carrying a child I'm not calling her a liar, simply mistaken.

Hi maria,

also i remember that those shutters were worked on by workmen in the days before Madeleine vanished.Apparently they were broke and needed mending etc. I wonder if their finger prints were on the windows to? It doesn't surprise me though that kates finger prints were on the window,they were on holiday there i would imagine at some point she had touched the windows,that's why its always baffled me that detectives find it odd that her finger prints were on the windows.LOL.i know when im away i will probably push a window open at some point.I just hope it doesn't cause me to be blamed for some deluded crime!!!IMO though.......if they found no odd finger prints and all those found were accountable for..ie,kates(she opened it) the staff(they work there) but no one else's might that suggest that they actually have their abductor???not kate of course but just because the other finger prints found were all accounted for doesn't mean they are innocent.If they found the workman's finger prints there they might have thought...''ahh that's ok he was working on those windows 3 days ago''...........BUT.....have they ruled him out of the abduction? after all no one elses prints were found........imo though Madeleine's abduction was carefully done and anyone who had to get her out through the window would have either used gloves,or the sleeve of their top to cover their hand

In my opinion, gloves were used by the abductor.

Pedro Silva wrote:In my opinion, gloves were used by the abductor.

your right pedro.i cant see how they would have managed it otherwise.they would have had to have touched something.even the gate on top of the steps.the patio doors,the back door,the bedroom door etc.But nothing was found.One thing that baffles me though is this...........the floor is tiled,and foot prints are easily left behind.Did they ever report any found? i remember something being reported about that matter although im not sure what it detailed.

maria wrote:Marilyn

I once posted my view on this open window on Sky, and it was that I was convinced that the window was opened from the inside to allow for the smell of some drug (I mentioned chloroform then) to disappear, nothing to do with breaking in or taking Madeleine through it. It has always been my convincement that there were some very volatile substances involved, so that all the children were mildly knocked out. That would explain also why the twins were so 'sound asleep' during all the comotion.

First comment: Kate's digital impressions opening the window. They were on the glass. The intruder would not slide the window that way, s/he would rather use the handler, and probably wearing some hand protection (gloves, etc). IMHO the impressions were made later for instance when a distressed Kate was explaining to someone (GNR...) how shw found the window open, and she probably doesn't recall that mouvement.

Second comment: if this method was used, then Jane's sighting is compromised, as definitely there wasn't enough time to allow Gerry out, knock Madeleine out, leave through the front door and be at the point where Jane spotted him. I must admit that my opinion on Jane's sighting is that she did not see a man carrying a child I'm not calling her a liar, simply mistaken.

______________

Hi Maria,

Yes, I remember your posting on Sky regarding chloroform .. I had also wondered at one point whether a hand-held taser might have been used (as it was with Jon-Benet). The use of Thinner would render both Madeleine and the twins unconsious without trace and may well be what was used. The anti's would have none of it of course .. didn't fit in with their hare-brained nonsense theories then, or now.

clairesy wrote:Hi maria,

also i remember that those shutters were worked on by workmen in the days before Madeleine vanished.Apparently they were broke and needed mending etc. I wonder if their finger prints were on the windows to? It doesn't surprise me though that kates finger prints were on the window,they were on holiday there i would imagine at some point she had touched the windows,that's why its always baffled me that detectives find it odd that her finger prints were on the windows.LOL.i know when im away i will probably push a window open at some point.I just hope it doesn't cause me to be blamed for some deluded crime!!!IMO though.......if they found no odd finger prints and all those found were accountable for..ie,kates(she opened it) the staff(they work there) but no one else's might that suggest that they actually have their abductor???not kate of course but just because the other finger prints found were all accounted for doesn't mean they are innocent.If they found the workman's finger prints there they might have thought...''ahh that's ok he was working on those windows 3 days ago''...........BUT.....have they ruled him out of the abduction? after all no one elses prints were found........imo though Madeleine's abduction was carefully done and anyone who had to get her out through the window would have either used gloves,or the sleeve of their top to cover their hand

Good thinking Clairesy. Did they thoroughly check the other finger prints?

Hang on a bit, was it that window - or the window in the parents' room that was repaired? And didn't we have a discussion about why Kates finger prints were the only ones on the window. Didn't we think that someone may have deliberately cleaned the windows just leaving Kates finger prints? In fact didn't we question why the PJ allowed the whole appartment to be so thoroughly cleaned? Didn't we wonder if the appartment had been deliberately cleaned to remove all evidence of the abductor?

Didn't we even wonder whether the lifting of Kates finger prints had been falsefied (I did anyhow, but then I question everything ).


I dont think you were on the forum much at that time Clairesy, and might have missed the discussion - think it was probably in Alroys 'A COMPLETE REVI......'

I certainly wonder why these two men came into the appartment. Was it just to repair the window?..............Hmm?

Marilyn Switzerland wrote:

maria wrote:Marilyn

I once posted my view on this open window on Sky, and it was that I was convinced that the window was opened from the inside to allow for the smell of some drug (I mentioned chloroform then) to disappear, nothing to do with breaking in or taking Madeleine through it. It has always been my convincement that there were some very volatile substances involved, so that all the children were mildly knocked out. That would explain also why the twins were so 'sound asleep' during all the comotion.

First comment: Kate's digital impressions opening the window. They were on the glass. The intruder would not slide the window that way, s/he would rather use the handler, and probably wearing some hand protection (gloves, etc). IMHO the impressions were made later for instance when a distressed Kate was explaining to someone (GNR...) how shw found the window open, and she probably doesn't recall that mouvement.

Second comment: if this method was used, then Jane's sighting is compromised, as definitely there wasn't enough time to allow Gerry out, knock Madeleine out, leave through the front door and be at the point where Jane spotted him. I must admit that my opinion on Jane's sighting is that she did not see a man carrying a child I'm not calling her a liar, simply mistaken.

______________

Hi Maria,

Yes, I remember your posting on Sky regarding chloroform .. I had also wondered at one point whether a hand-held taser might have been used (as it was with Jon-Benet). The use of Thinner would render both Madeleine and the twins unconsious without trace and may well be what was used. The anti's would have none of it of course .. didn't fit in with their hare-brained nonsense theories then, or now.

Chloroform

I am old enough to remember having that for operations and at the dentists. Dont think they use it any more. I seem to remember that the effects didn't last very long and it had to be re-administered....Hmm, difficult if you are on the run. It used to be administered by pouring some from a bottle on to a pad, then holding the pad to the patients nose (I think) - so three hands needed if carrying a child. if i am remembering this incorrectly can someone please correct me.

Tazer gun

Now that sounds modern, but how long would the effects of that last?...Hmm? And how big is a tazer gun? Would it be difficult to conceal?


Nah, I dont think so. PdL is a drug trafficking town. Bet they used drugs of some sort. Maybe chloroform or Tazer to knock out and then an injection of something in the scalp (under the hair to hide it).
Wonder if the twins woke up at the normal time and if they were cranky or anything (After effects)

Hi clairesy,

These workmen were working on other shutters, the one in the parents bedroom.

Still there's something strange about the fingerprints, or rather lack of them I think. Like for instance doesn't the cleaning lady open the window to get fresh air in? Or doesn't she clean the window ever? Did the pj ask her about that? Why didn't they find her fingerprints then? Or for instance Diane Webster touched the shutters from the outside (tried to lift them). Why didn't they find her fingerprints? And if they were part of the unidentifiable fingerprints, why aren't there many more unidentifiable fingerprints found on the shutters?

So many questions unanswered....

sadie wrote:

Marilyn Switzerland wrote:

maria wrote:Marilyn

I once posted my view on this open window on Sky, and it was that I was convinced that the window was opened from the inside to allow for the smell of some drug (I mentioned chloroform then) to disappear, nothing to do with breaking in or taking Madeleine through it. It has always been my convincement that there were some very volatile substances involved, so that all the children were mildly knocked out. That would explain also why the twins were so 'sound asleep' during all the comotion.

First comment: Kate's digital impressions opening the window. They were on the glass. The intruder would not slide the window that way, s/he would rather use the handler, and probably wearing some hand protection (gloves, etc). IMHO the impressions were made later for instance when a distressed Kate was explaining to someone (GNR...) how shw found the window open, and she probably doesn't recall that mouvement.

Second comment: if this method was used, then Jane's sighting is compromised, as definitely there wasn't enough time to allow Gerry out, knock Madeleine out, leave through the front door and be at the point where Jane spotted him. I must admit that my opinion on Jane's sighting is that she did not see a man carrying a child I'm not calling her a liar, simply mistaken.

______________

Hi Maria,

Yes, I remember your posting on Sky regarding chloroform .. I had also wondered at one point whether a hand-held taser might have been used (as it was with Jon-Benet). The use of Thinner would render both Madeleine and the twins unconsious without trace and may well be what was used. The anti's would have none of it of course .. didn't fit in with their hare-brained nonsense theories then, or now.

Chloroform

I am old enough to remember having that for operations and at the dentists. Dont think they use it any more. I seem to remember that the effects didn't last very long and it had to be re-administered....Hmm, difficult if you are on the run. It used to be administered by pouring some from a bottle on to a pad, then holding the pad to the patients nose (I think) - so three hands needed if carrying a child. if i am remembering this incorrectly can someone please correct me.

Tazer gun

Now that sounds modern, but how long would the effects of that last?...Hmm? And how big is a tazer gun? Would it be difficult to conceal?


Nah, I dont think so. PdL is a drug trafficking town. Bet they used drugs of some sort. Maybe chloroform or Tazer to knock out and then an injection of something in the scalp (under the hair to hide it).
Wonder if the twins woke up at the normal time and if they were cranky or anything (After effects)

____________

Hi Sadie,
A hand-held taser fits into the palm of the hand and just a touch to the skin would knock out an adult .. Jon-Benet had 2 taser burns on her body. But yes, I agree, I think it was some sort of solvent-soaked pad put over the face, and perhaps re-applied. Some sort of drugging anyway, and for the twins too.

The McCanns detectives think that the abductor was already in the apartment, when Gerry went in, he then stood talking to Jes for a while BEFORE Jane came out from the Tapas, it would not take many minutes to sedate an already sleeping child, pass her through the window or walk through the door and walk across the road, it is not far from the apartment from the top of the road. Five/six minutes tops.

Interesting that a tazer is so small; thanks Marilyn for the information.

Cath, I didn't realise that Diane webster had touched the shutters from the outside. Mind, the PJ were talking about the actual window weren't they?
You know, I like to bet almost everyone touched that window and tried opening it and looked outside. Just think about it, you would wouldn't you? - well I would anyhow. Why only Kates finger prints?....Hmm?

You are right Rosie, it wouldn't take long especially if the abductors had a key, or device, to open the door. I used to think that the abductor couldn't have been in the appartment whilst Gerry was there, but I wonder, now? I also wonder if there was a watcher in the little car park who was in contact with the abductors and maybe they had already entered the appartment and beat a hasty retreat through the door when warned that Gerry was approaching? Maybe the watcher let them know that Gerry had left, not realising that he was about to bump into Jez - and someone immediately went in again to abduct Madeleine?

I'm not sure I have that right; it all seems a bit messy.

Gerry and Jez thought they talked for about 3 minutes, didn't they? I bet they talked longer than that; time is deceptive when you are talking.

How i wish we had been there to see it all!

I meant it would not take the abductor that long to take Madeleine whiff of sedation, saw them in road, straight back in and opened the window and passed her out and off. Probably went to get the car, saw Jes and Gerry still talking and just carried on walking, this is why he was walking, probably never meant it to happen this way. I feel sure he or someone came back and moved the car a little later, shame there was no CCTV cameras!

Either that or the abductor was the local man and he was on his way back to his home with Madeleine in his arms, this would depend where he lived, it would also depend on the Smith sighting.

According to the papers yesterday the private detectives now think that there wasn't a car involved and Madeleine was taken only about 500 yards away from the apartment. If that is true, then IF the Portuguese police had done their job properly and searched every building in the vicinity she would most probably have been found. I can remember on the day after Madeleine had been taken Richard Bilton, the BBC reporter, was shadowing a police officer. He went up to a disused building which had a padlock on the door. The policeman didn't make any attempt to try to go inside the building, and Richard asked why. He said that the building was private property and they, the police, weren't allowed to search it. What on earth was that for a reason? And to this day an enormous amount of apartments, buildings, outhouses etc etc have still not been searched. Call themselves a police force, they should all be lined up and shot!!