UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Brietta on January 20, 2023, 12:32:03 PM
-
Today Barrier posted on another thread which had 'slipped' into the window discussion again.
Nope, I'm trying to fathom the open window which a half decent defence would question, but I doubt any prosecution would rely on it .This thread is about stranger abduction and evidence there of.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12484.msg698271#msg698271
Which gave me pause for thought about forum discussions in the past which had either resolved questions or which at the least suggested explanation of events.
I am not a scientist but I did understand what those with a greater understanding of physics had worked out regarding the trope of the "whoosh" of curtains.
Always a shame to lose information then have to go back to the drawing board for it - when it is already available on the forum.
So often these are discussed – then forgotten again as here.
One of these being the physics of the Venturi Effect on anything that flows – for example liquids such as water, and gases such as air.
Did You Know?
The ‘explosion’ of windows during a tornado is due to the Venturi effect. Because wind blowing at a high speed creates low pressure, the air inside the house rushes out to occupy this void.
https://sciencestruck.com/explanation-applications-of-venturi-effect
Kate McCann demonstrated in her account of events what happens when conditions are right for the Venturi Effect to occur.
We have all seen her describing pulling the bedroom door towards her which slammed!!!. Some of us have mocked and laughed at her. But physics prove her account.
-
Today Barrier posted on another thread which had 'slipped' into the window discussion again.
Nope, I'm trying to fathom the open window which a half decent defence would question, but I doubt any prosecution would rely on it .This thread is about stranger abduction and evidence there of.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12484.msg698271#msg698271
Which gave me pause for thought about forum discussions in the past which had either resolved questions or which at the least suggested explanation of events.
I am not a scientist but I did understand what those with a greater understanding of physics had worked out regarding the trope of the "whoosh" of curtains.
Always a shame to lose information then have to go back to the drawing board for it - when it is already available on the forum.
So often these are discussed – then forgotten again as here.
One of these being the physics of the Venturi Effect on anything that flows – for example liquids such as water, and gases such as air.
Did You Know?
The ‘explosion’ of windows during a tornado is due to the Venturi effect. Because wind blowing at a high speed creates low pressure, the air inside the house rushes out to occupy this void.
https://sciencestruck.com/explanation-applications-of-venturi-effect
Kate McCann demonstrated in her account of events what happens when conditions are right for the Venturi Effect to occur.
We have all seen her describing pulling the bedroom door towards her which slammed!!!. Some of us have mocked and laughed at her. But physics prove her account.
No, physics do not prove her account. Your opinion might be that it does, but that's not the same thing as actually proving her account I'm afraid.
-
No, physics do not prove her account. Your opinion might be that it does, but that's not the same thing as actually proving her account I'm afraid.
You haven't disappointed my expectation that you would post your rather exotic opinions in an attempt to WUM your way through a thread set up to discuss serious scientific observations.
🤡 AND HERE YOU ARE 🤡
-
You haven't disappointed my expectation that you would post your rather exotic opinions in an attempt to WUM your way through a thread set up to discuss serious scientific observations.
🤡 AND HERE YOU ARE 🤡
Sigh. I did try telling you before, if you stop making easily contestable statements & presenting your opinion as fact in your posts every time, I wouldn't feel compelled to reply.
If you'd have said physics supports Kate's account, rather than proves it, you might not have heard from me.
-
Re: The whooshing curtains, net curtains or both?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=dv5rq14n4fuh4s4mqau9lsmue5&topic=5477.msg197144#msg197144
Quote from: John on November 01, 2014, 09:00:51 PM
Mat looked into the kids bedroom a mere 30 minutes before Kate and he never reported open curtains and an open shutter. So what changed?
Pegasus
During the 2130 check, the pressure in the lounge diner kitchen hall was normal atmospheric pressure, with a constant through draught coming in window and out kitchen vent.
Same during the first part of the 2200 check.
But there is a big change of scenario when the 2200 checker moves the door to almost closed, because this enables the through draught to slam the door shut.
Now suddenly the pressure in lounge diner kitchen hall drops from normal to negative because no air can enter apartment to replace air being sucked strongly up vent.
And then when the 2200 checker reopens the bedroom door, there is a single extra strong blast of air in through the window to bring the negative pressure in lounge etc back up to normal.
It was that one off blast of air which blew the curtains in. So that explains the difference between the 2130 check and the 2200 check.
**** **** **** **** ****
The opening post on this thread (The whooshing curtains, net curtains or both?) asks the question ~
"The way Kate describes the curtains billowing open though is surprising to me given they were floor length curtains in the photos... Not saying that couldn't happen just surprising..." Fair point and certainly one worth checking out particularly as it was an experience described by a material witness to the event.
I know that Rebelo on takeover of the case showed a great deal of interest in egress and ingress via the bedroom window ~ we've seen the photos.
What I don't know is if he entered into the science of the happening by asking the forensic science institute or other experts for an opinion on this very precise evidence.
-
Who ever pegasus is or was , were they in 5a with a barometer ?
-
Who ever pegasus is or was , were they in 5a with a barometer ?
and yet there are many, many sceptics who know for a fact that the curtains could never have whooshed - were they all piled in there too, observing?
-
Who ever pegasus is or was , were they in 5a with a barometer ?
Pegasus posted erudite and well thought out information on this forum on which s/he was a valued contributor and I think your question would have raised an eyebrow ~ quite simply because such an illogical non-sequitur was way beneath the standard of expected response.
Now back to the effect of the Venturi Effect.
Quite simply I do know that Kate was present in 5A and was able to describe the Venturi Effect perfectly. Was there a requirement for a barometer to enable her to do that?
You've raised the question - perhaps you would explain your thoughts and enlighten the forum.
-
and yet there are many, many sceptics who know for a fact that the curtains could never have whooshed - were they all piled in there too, observing?
The Venturi Effect is an explanation.
There was another myth associated with the window (do forgive me for missing out the lichen which photographic evidence dismissed).
Remember the bandwith taken up with the 'evidence' that it was impossible to raise the shutter and open the window from outside as described by the material witnesses. We've seen that disproved as we watched the video of the window being opened after the shutter had been raised ~ from the outside.
-
The Venturi Effect is an explanation.
There was another myth associated with the window (do forgive me for missing out the lichen which photographic evidence dismissed).
Remember the bandwith taken up with the 'evidence' that it was impossible to raise the shutter and open the window from outside as described by the material witnesses. We've seen that disproved as we watched the video of the window being opened after the shutter had been raised ~ from the outside.
Given the level of discussion on here in the last few days in which we have examined whooshed curtains, the e-fits, the way doctors certainly behave in any given situation, etc surely it is only a matter of time before the subject of lichen and Kate's earrings are resurrected. We haven't had Gerry swearing on the bus for a while either, any takers for that? Yes, by golly, when you think about it the evidence that "the McCanns Murdered Maddie" sure does stack up!
-
Re: The whooshing curtains, net curtains or both?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=dv5rq14n4fuh4s4mqau9lsmue5&topic=5477.msg197144#msg197144
Quote from: John on November 01, 2014, 09:00:51 PM
Mat looked into the kids bedroom a mere 30 minutes before Kate and he never reported open curtains and an open shutter. So what changed?
Pegasus
During the 2130 check, the pressure in the lounge diner kitchen hall was normal atmospheric pressure, with a constant through draught coming in window and out kitchen vent.
Same during the first part of the 2200 check.
But there is a big change of scenario when the 2200 checker moves the door to almost closed, because this enables the through draught to slam the door shut.
Now suddenly the pressure in lounge diner kitchen hall drops from normal to negative because no air can enter apartment to replace air being sucked strongly up vent.
And then when the 2200 checker reopens the bedroom door, there is a single extra strong blast of air in through the window to bring the negative pressure in lounge etc back up to normal.
It was that one off blast of air which blew the curtains in. So that explains the difference between the 2130 check and the 2200 check.
**** **** **** **** ****
The opening post on this thread (The whooshing curtains, net curtains or both?) asks the question ~
"The way Kate describes the curtains billowing open though is surprising to me given they were floor length curtains in the photos... Not saying that couldn't happen just surprising..." Fair point and certainly one worth checking out particularly as it was an experience described by a material witness to the event.
I know that Rebelo on takeover of the case showed a great deal of interest in egress and ingress via the bedroom window ~ we've seen the photos.
What I don't know is if he entered into the science of the happening by asking the forensic science institute or other experts for an opinion on this very precise evidence.
But there is a big change of scenario when the 2200 checker moves the door to almost closed, because this enables the through draught to slam the door shut
So why didn't this happen when she opened the patio door
-
But there is a big change of scenario when the 2200 checker moves the door to almost closed, because this enables the through draught to slam the door shut
So why didn't this happen when she opened the patio door
Maybe because there was no gust of wind when Kate came in through the patio door. Amaral did say in his book it was windy at night.
-
Maybe because there was no gust of wind when Kate came in through the patio door. Amaral did say in his book it was windy at night.
Well you can never trust anything Amaral says, he's a convicted liar, so it was probably calm & windless night really.
-
Well you can never trust anything Amaral says, he's a convicted liar, so it was probably calm & windless night really.
@)(++(*
-
But there is a big change of scenario when the 2200 checker moves the door to almost closed, because this enables the through draught to slam the door shut
So why didn't this happen when she opened the patio door
I don't know. I'm not a scientist.
I do know what the witness said in her statement correctly described what happens in such circumstances and I do know that a diagram illustrating the effect was posted on the forum at one time.
And if you are really interested the internet is full of them.
Slamming of doors by a draft
The slamming of doors due to a draft, is also due to the Venturi effect.
The door gap is a constricted cross-section through which the air flows very quickly.
The air pressure in the gap between the door and the frame drops.
Around the door leaf, the air usually flows at a much lower speed.
The higher pressure on the door leaf compared to the air pressure in the gap, therefore slams the door with great force, even if the air stream flows with the opening direction of the door! https://www.tec-science.com/mechanics/gases-and-liquids/examples-of-applications-of-the-bernoulli-effect/
-
Maybe because there was no gust of wind when Kate came in through the patio door. Amaral did say in his book it was windy at night.
It was gusty according to weather reports that I posted on here. I seem to remember that gusts of 20
mph were recorded These reports seem to have been wiped now.
-
I don't know. I'm not a scientist.
I do know what the witness said in her statement correctly described what happens in such circumstances and I do know that a diagram illustrating the effect was posted on the forum at one time.
And if you are really interested the internet is full of them.
Slamming of doors by a draft
The slamming of doors due to a draft, is also due to the Venturi effect.
The door gap is a constricted cross-section through which the air flows very quickly.
The air pressure in the gap between the door and the frame drops.
Around the door leaf, the air usually flows at a much lower speed.
The higher pressure on the door leaf compared to the air pressure in the gap, therefore slams the door with great force, even if the air stream flows with the opening direction of the door! https://www.tec-science.com/mechanics/gases-and-liquids/examples-of-applications-of-the-bernoulli-effect/
I don't know. I'm not a scientist.
No, so you dont know either why it didnt slam when the patio door was opened.
-
I don't know. I'm not a scientist.
No, so you dont know either why it didnt slam when the patio door was opened.
I do. Reasons:
1) The patio door opening didn't happen the same time as a gust outside
2) The bedroom door was wide open when Kate entered via the patio door and for the venturi ffect to take place, the gap between door and surround had to be minimal.
3) If the bedroom door was open so that it lined up with the corner of the wardrobe, then none of the back face of the door had any wind on it. The back face of the door was in the Lee of the corner of the wardrobe.
Item 2 is the most likely. The conditions re gap where not suitable for a Venturi reaction.
It wa only as the gap betwixt door and frame narrowed that the Venturi effect came into operation.
-
Maybe because there was no gust of wind when Kate came in through the patio door. Amaral did say in his book it was windy at night.
There was a lot of puzzling over the years of exactly the circumstances in which Kate's description of events could have occurred and I think the members of this forum worked it out.
First of all an air flow was found which Pegasus got quite excited about.
http://www.allmystery.de/i/t79bd1b_the-ocean-club-appartments-in-praia-da-l.jpg
Eureka. Found the through draught.
See that 3-storey-high vent chimney on the left of the building. You can see it continue down the wall. That must connect to the cooker vent hoods in the kitchens of 5A and 5G and 5K.
So air flows in the open child bedroom window and out the vent hood in the kitchen and up that vent chimney.
The gravity effect will make the through draught even stronger.
So there folks you have your slamming door and blowing curtains, exactly as truthfully described by the witness.https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5409.msg195465#msg195465
-
I don't know. I'm not a scientist.
No, so you dont know either why it didnt slam when the patio door was opened.
I can read both what has been posted on this forum and from scientific data posted on the internet to work out that what Kate described happened very much as she said it did.
Perhaps one requires to have an open mind to do that and the knowledge that I don't know everything ~ but I am willing to learn.
And so very often gems of knowledge used to be posted on this forum which as time goes by get forgotten or as new members arrive ~ are not known about.
Barrier had never heard of the Venturi Effect in relation to Kate describing witnessing it, for example. Well he has now!
-
I do. Reasons:
1) The patio door opening didn't happen the same time as a gust outside
2) The bedroom door was wide open when Kate entered via the patio door and for the venturi ffect to take place, the gap between door and surround had to be minimal.
3) If the bedroom door was open so that it lined up with the corner of the wardrobe, then none of the back face of the door had any wind on it. The back face of the door was in the Lee of the corner of the wardrobe.
Item 2 is the most likely. The conditions re gap where not suitable for a Venturi reaction.
It wa only as the gap betwixt door and frame narrowed that the Venturi effect came into operation.
Sadie - I replied to the wrong post and not yours above. Don't be concerned if you've seen it and are worrying about what I'm getting up to - just me getting mixed up ;)
-
Sigh. I did try telling you before, if you stop making easily contestable statements & presenting your opinion as fact in your posts every time, I wouldn't feel compelled to reply.
If you'd have said physics supports Kate's account, rather than proves it, you might not have heard from me.
I should be so lucky!
However ignoring insults and back to the thread topic of the information secreted within forgotten forum posts. Which really should be remembered for their veracity and honest attempts at finding explanation for events formerly thought inexplicable.
Pegasus notes
During the 2130 check, the pressure in the lounge diner kitchen hall was normal atmospheric pressure, with a constant through draught coming in window and out kitchen vent.
Same during the first part of the 2200 check.
But there is a big change of scenario when the 2200 checker moves the door to almost closed, because this enables the through draught to slam the door shut.
Now suddenly the pressure in lounge diner kitchen hall drops from normal to negative because no air can enter apartment to replace air being sucked strongly up vent.
And then when the 2200 checker reopens the bedroom door, there is a single extra strong blast of air in through the window to bring the negative pressure in lounge etc back up to normal.
It was that one off blast of air which blew the curtains in.
So that explains the difference between the 2130 check and the 2200 check. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=dv5rq14n4fuh4s4mqau9lsmue5&topic=5477.msg197144#msg197144
-
Sadie - I replied to the wrong post and not yours above. Don't be concerned if you've seen it and are worrying about what I'm getting up to - just me getting mixed up ;)
I learned about The Venturi Effects and Bernoulii Effects whilst doing The Hydraulics and Applied Thermodynamics module of my HNC Course in Mechanical Engineering. It wasn't my strongest subject, but I understood it better than some of that module. However it has been 65 years since I did it and I am sure that some can describe it better than I can with my dyslexia. I remember the principles.
Now, I am wondering why Barrier didn't know about it. I seem to remember him being science educated and scientifcally knowledgeable in posts a few years ago. Have I got that right, Barrier?
-
I learned about The Venturi Effects and Bernoulii Effects whilst doing The Hydraulics and Applied Thermodynamics module of my HNC Course in Mechanical Engineering. It wasn't my strongest subject, but I understood it better than some of that module. However it has been 65 years since I did it and I am sure that some can describe it better than I can with my dyslexia. I remember the principles.
Now, I am wondering why Barrier didn't know about it. I seem to remember him being science educated and scientifcally knowledgeable in posts a few years ago. Have I got that right, Barrier?
Air pressure at sea level is 14.7 PSI , thats basic schoolboy stuff or at least it use to be, of course the pressure in the flat would be normal, with a breeze /gust of wind out side creating pressure against the outside any door or window opened would allow the rush of outside air in, the path of least resistance .Doesn't take any special knowledge to know this.
-
I learned about The Venturi Effects and Bernoulii Effects whilst doing The Hydraulics and Applied Thermodynamics module of my HNC Course in Mechanical Engineering. It wasn't my strongest subject, but I understood it better than some of that module. However it has been 65 years since I did it and I am sure that some can describe it better than I can with my dyslexia. I remember the principles.
Now, I am wondering why Barrier didn't know about it. I seem to remember him being science educated and scientifcally knowledgeable in posts a few years ago. Have I got that right, Barrier?
Seems to me that for anyone with a scientific background there is no mystery associated with understanding the Venturi effect as it appears to be elementary.
Yet his disbelief of Kate's testimony and description of it it is one of the cornerstones of Amaral's vendetta against the McCanns
-
Seems to me that for anyone with a scientific background there is no mystery associated with understanding the Venturi effect as it appears to be elementary.
Yet his disbelief of Kate's testimony and description of it it is one of the cornerstones of Amaral's vendetta against the McCanns
Maybe some can remember the old metal draw plates that were used when starting a fire in the grate.
The draw plate was almost the size of the fireplace aperture. My Mum used to light a tiny fire in screwed up newspaper with a little kindling wood on top and an addment or so of tiny coal pieces. The minute she got t lit, the draw plate was put across the aperute (with IIRC a tiny gap at the bottom). A large piece of newspaper was slapped across the draw plate overlapping the aperture sides so sealing the gap.
There would be a sudden roar as the venturi effect took place and voila the fire was going. Sometimes the large sheet of newspaper went up in flames too and Mum just rapidly and calmly put it out by smothering it. Quita a sight to see your Mum enveloped in flames!
I think the older generation were braver than we are with fire. Grandpa used to smoke a pipe and used folded newspaper as spills which he lit from the open fire. In old age, he had a huge beard and moustache which he regularly set alight. No panick , just smother the flames of spill and beard and moustache with your hand and in his eighties his hands were shaky too. 8(>((
-
Maybe some can remember the old metal draw plates that were used when starting a fire in the grate.
The draw plate was almost the size of the fireplace aperture. My Mum used to light a tiny fire in screwed up newspaper with a little kindling wood on top and an addment or so of tiny coal pieces. The minute she got t lit, the draw plate was put across the aperute (with IIRC a tiny gap at the bottom). A large piece of newspaper was slapped across the draw plate overlapping the aperture sides so sealing the gap.
There would be a sudden roar as the venturi effect took place and voila the fire was going. Sometimes the large sheet of newspaper went up in flames too and Mum just rapidly and calmly put it out by smothering it. Quita a sight to see your Mum enveloped in flames!
I think the older generation were braver than we are with fire. Grandpa used to smoke a pipe and used folded newspaper as spills which he lit from the open fire. In old age, he had a huge beard and moustache which he regularly set alight. No panick , just smother the flames of spill and beard and moustache with your hand and in his eighties his hands were shaky too. 8(>((
Ah yes, I remember it well... https://youtu.be/vCMEPFSkQOw?t=1209 (https://youtu.be/vCMEPFSkQOw?t=1209)
-
Ah yes, I remember it well... https://youtu.be/vCMEPFSkQOw?t=1209 (https://youtu.be/vCMEPFSkQOw?t=1209)
Thanks for that, Ret.
But no draw plate there, so no/little Venturi effect.. Crazy to do without one and it wouldn't work either, would it. But it made good filming.
-
Maybe some can remember the old metal draw plates that were used when starting a fire in the grate.
The draw plate was almost the size of the fireplace aperture. My Mum used to light a tiny fire in screwed up newspaper with a little kindling wood on top and an addment or so of tiny coal pieces. The minute she got t lit, the draw plate was put across the aperute (with IIRC a tiny gap at the bottom). A large piece of newspaper was slapped across the draw plate overlapping the aperture sides so sealing the gap.
There would be a sudden roar as the venturi effect took place and voila the fire was going. Sometimes the large sheet of newspaper went up in flames too and Mum just rapidly an
d calmly put it out by smothering it. Quita a sight to see your Mum enveloped in flames!
I think the older generation were braver than we are with fire. Grandpa used to smoke a pipe and used folded newspaper as spills which he lit from the open fire. In old age, he had a huge beard and moustache which he regularly set alight. No panick , just smother the flames of spill and beard and moustache with your hand and in his eighties his hands were shaky too. 8(>((
I remember it well. My father-in-law used to stand the coal shovel upright and put the newspaper up against it. Then the constriction which was already present in the chimney was enhanced. Fireplaces fitted with dampers helped to increase the effect also, but rarely matched the 'newspaper effect' when lighting it.
https://www.mrfixitbali.com/building-design/chimneys-and-flues-43.html
-
Maybe some can remember the old metal draw plates that were used when starting a fire in the grate.
The draw plate was almost the size of the fireplace aperture. My Mum used to light a tiny fire in screwed up newspaper with a little kindling wood on top and an addment or so of tiny coal pieces. The minute she got t lit, the draw plate was put across the aperute (with IIRC a tiny gap at the bottom). A large piece of newspaper was slapped across the draw plate overlapping the aperture sides so sealing the gap.
There would be a sudden roar as the venturi effect took place and voila the fire was going. Sometimes the large sheet of newspaper went up in flames too and Mum just rapidly and calmly put it out by smothering it. Quita a sight to see your Mum enveloped in flames!
I think the older generation were braver than we are with fire. Grandpa used to smoke a pipe and used folded newspaper as spills which he lit from the open fire. In old age, he had a huge beard and moustache which he regularly set alight. No panick , just smother the flames of spill and beard and moustache with your hand and in his eighties his hands were shaky too. 8(>((
Those were the days, the door to the room had to left ajar so the fire could draw.
-
I remember mother would heat water over the fire in a copper pan and pour it into an old tin bath in front of fire. Father would get in first, and make water all black from the soot on his hands and face (he were a coal miner), then our Harold would get in next (him being eldest), then Susan, then the twins Jimmy and Johnny, I'd be next and then mother and baby Mabel would be last in. Water would be quite tepid by this point so father would pour in another pan of hot water (if he was still awake or hadn't b....red off t'Coach & Horses). Ah, them were the days.
-
Those were the days, the door to the room had to left ajar so the fire could draw.
The appliance of science being described.
Little did we know it was all down to something called the Venturi Effect; and exactly as recorded in Kate's witness statement when she described the slamming door and the whooshing curtains.
-
I remember mother would heat water over the fire in a copper pan and pour it into an old tin bath in front of fire. Father would get in first, and make water all black from the soot on his hands and face (he were a coal miner), then our Harold would get in next (him being eldest), then Susan, then the twins Jimmy and Johnny, I'd be next and then mother and baby Mabel would be last in. Water would be quite tepid by this point so father would pour in another pan of hot water (if he was still awake or hadn't b....red off t'Coach & Horses). Ah, them were the days.
I was well into that before I heard the theme music playing in the background!!!!!!!!!!
-
I remember mother would heat water over the fire in a copper pan and pour it into an old tin bath in front of fire. Father would get in first, and make water all black from the soot on his hands and face (he were a coal miner), then our Harold would get in next (him being eldest), then Susan, then the twins Jimmy and Johnny, I'd be next and then mother and baby Mabel would be last in. Water would be quite tepid by this point so father would pour in another pan of hot water (if he was still awake or hadn't b....red off t'Coach & Horses). Ah, them were the days.
Soot? Coal dust surely, unless he was a chimney sweep.
-
Soot? Coal dust surely, unless he was a chimney sweep.
He swept chimneys part-time after doing his twelve-hour shift at coal face. Young uns don't know what work is these days.
-
Soot? Coal dust surely, unless he was a chimney sweep.
You spotted the deliberate mistake, well done. Just checking you were awake 8(0(*
-
He swept chimneys part-time after doing his twelve-hour shift at coal face. Young uns don't know what work is these days.
Before actually. Then he got a bit too portly to get up them chimneys and would send our Harold to do his round, water would be even filthier after that. Still, they were happy days, always bread ont’table (couldn’t afford plates).
-
Before actually. Then he got a bit too portly to get up them chimneys and would send our Harold to do his round, water would be even filthier after that. Still, they were happy days, always bread ont’table (couldn’t afford plates).
Love your new name VENTURI Swirl. (&^&
What an original and lively mind you have 8@??)(
A lateral as well as a vertical thinker
Would love you and three or four of the others in a team working things out
-
Love your new name VENTURI Swirl. (&^&
What an original and lively mind you have 8@??)(
A lateral as well as a vertical thinker
Would love you and three or four of the others in a team working things out
I think it is brilliant!
There have been so many good discussions which have taken place on the forum which ended quite definitively and are then forgotten and groundhogdayed at a later date, that are worth being reminded of.
The reasoning which led to the "discovery" of the Venturi Effect when Kate's description of what happened when she did the 10pm check is just one.
It counterbalances some of the ridicule that Kate's honest account attracted with the science which caused the effect.
It is my understanding that Rebelo was interested in records of the wind velocity and direction, as well as conducting an intense physical investigation of the locus. So maybe he beat our very intelligent members to it way back in 2007.
-
I do. Reasons:
1) The patio door opening didn't happen the same time as a gust outside
2) The bedroom door was wide open when Kate entered via the patio door and for the venturi ffect to take place, the gap between door and surround had to be minimal.
3) If the bedroom door was open so that it lined up with the corner of the wardrobe, then none of the back face of the door had any wind on it. The back face of the door was in the Lee of the corner of the wardrobe.
Item 2 is the most likely. The conditions re gap where not suitable for a Venturi reaction.
It wa only as the gap betwixt door and frame narrowed that the Venturi effect came into operation.
I think the whole point is, Sadie, that what we think we know has to be tempered with dismissing our own prejudices and reading carefully through what witnesses are saying and analysing that information.
Collectively there must have been volume upon volume of internet myth and ridicule with Kate's whooshing curtains and slamming door being the catalyst. All based on ignorance!
When looked at rationally, Kate's description mirrors the science and what she stated happened is known as the Venturi Effect.
I think it is highly probable that Rebelo and the highly qualified team he brought with him to the investigation had worked that out given the known interest shown in relevant areas of the crime scene.
-
I think the whole point is, Sadie, that what we think we know has to be tempered with dismissing our own prejudices and reading carefully through what witnesses are saying and analysing that information.
Collectively there must have been volume upon volume of internet myth and ridicule with Kate's whooshing curtains and slamming door being the catalyst. All based on ignorance!
When looked at rationally, Kate's description mirrors the science and what she stated happened is known as the Venturi Effect.
I think it is highly probable that Rebelo and the highly qualified team he brought with him to the investigation had worked that out given the known interest shown in relevant areas of the crime scene.
I thought we all knew that leaving a window wide open on a windy day caused internal doors to move? I once lived in an apartment with a balcony door. If that was open on a windy day and the front door was opened it would slam, as it did one day when I'd stepped outside to speak to my neighbour and got locked out.
In my opinion there were other reasons why people questioned Kate McCann's account.
-
I thought we all knew that leaving a window wide open on a windy day caused internal doors to move? I once lived in an apartment with a balcony door. If that was open on a windy day and the front door was opened it would slam, as it did one day when I'd stepped outside to speak to my neighbour and got locked out.
In my opinion there were other reasons why people questioned Kate McCann's account.
There are people who question absolutely everything the McCanns say or do: always have done and always will do till their dying breath.
Explaining why something simple like a door slamming and (for example) getting locked out as a result happens is difficult for individuals who fail to grasp that a children's medicine is an analgesic and not a sedative.
-
There are people who question absolutely everything the McCanns say or do: always have done and always will do till their dying breath.
Explaining why something simple like a door slamming and (for example) getting locked out as a result happens is difficult for individuals who fail to grasp that a children's medicine is an analgesic and not a sedative.
I don't know what method of child checking was used by the McCanns. They could have entered the apartment and left again if all was quiet. I recall Matthew Oldfield reported that 'all was quiet'. Kate's first impulse on entering the patio doors was to stand and listen. On 3rd May, however, both she and her husband reported seeing changes to the door of the children's bedroom. In both cases this led them to enter the room and look at the children. If Redwood was correct, however, Madeleine was taken after 9.30pm, so who was messing with that door before Gerry and Matthew's visits and why?
-
I don't know what method of child checking was used by the McCanns. They could have entered the apartment and left again if all was quiet. I recall Matthew Oldfield reported that 'all was quiet'. Kate's first impulse on entering the patio doors was to stand and listen. On 3rd May, however, both she and her husband reported seeing changes to the door of the children's bedroom. In both cases this led them to enter the room and look at the children. If Redwood was correct, however, Madeleine was taken after 9.30pm, so who was messing with that door before Gerry and Matthew's visits and why?
I was prompted to open this thread when a member displayed ignorance of information which is already on the forum.
We all take part in discussions which we may not remember verbatim - but the information is all already in existence on the forum.
I can assure you this is very much the case regarding the movement of the door because I have been reading threads dedicated to the subject as well as some mentioning it in passing.
I suggest you use the forum search facility to answer your query because the answer is definitely there.
-
I was prompted to open this thread when a member displayed ignorance of information which is already on the forum.
We all take part in discussions which we may not remember verbatim - but the information is all already in existence on the forum.
I can assure you this is very much the case regarding the movement of the door because I have been reading threads dedicated to the subject as well as some mentioning it in passing.
I suggest you use the forum search facility to answer your query because the answer is definitely there.
Theories abound, but not supported evidence imo.
-
Theories abound, but not supported evidence imo.
There are really no theories. There are witness statements detailing what people saw and what people did when they were there at the time in question. I don't think it is as convoluted as you seem to think. You may not agree with previous years of postings or you may be in full agreement with some. All opinions are represented if memory serves me well.
Do you think the Venturi Effect is a theory?
-
Theories abound, but not supported evidence imo.
It was a windy evening we know that, so the door could have moved prior to 9.30pm as a result of entering or leaving the apartment. Why is theory not supported by the evidence?
-
All that whooshing and slamming. Must have given Kate a bit of a fright. Strange then that she didn’t mention it in her first statement. In fact I think the media was the first to know.
-
All that whooshing and slamming. Must have given Kate a bit of a fright. Strange then that she didn’t mention it in her first statement. In fact I think the media was the first to know.
If they were, so what ?
-
If they were, so what ?
If you have to ask the question sadie….
-
If you have to ask the question sadie….
Very short basic statement and think of how her mind must have been whirling?
Have some compassion Faith. I know that you ae capable of it, because you have shown it to me, for which I thank you.
-
It was a windy evening we know that, so the door could have moved prior to 9.30pm as a result of entering or leaving the apartment. Why is theory not supported by the evidence?
This is an example of a theory; that the bedroom door moved because people entered and left the apartment.
-
All that whooshing and slamming. Must have given Kate a bit of a fright. Strange then that she didn’t mention it in her first statement. In fact I think the media was the first to know.
More detail emerged in the joint statement produced between 4th and 9th May, and handed to the PJ on 10th.
She enters through the closed patio entrance, with the curtains closed. She crosses the living area, and there is no noise from the children's bedroom. She is about to leave,
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Once again, silence seems to be enough for her to judge that all is OK and she can leave...but wait!
she notices the bedroom door was
open (approximately 60 degrees).
She starts to close it and it slams. Considering the patio doors had caused a draft, she checks these doors but they are closed. KM returns to the bedroom and opens the door to check the children were not disturbed by the noise.
At this point, she notices that Madeleine is missing.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Phew! thank goodness for the moving door, otherwise who knows when Madeleine's disappearance would have been noticed.
-
This is an example of a theory; that the bedroom door moved because people entered and left the apartment.
with evidence to support it
-
More detail emerged in the joint statement produced between 4th and 9th May, and handed to the PJ on 10th.
She enters through the closed patio entrance, with the curtains closed. She crosses the living area, and there is no noise from the children's bedroom. She is about to leave,
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Once again, silence seems to be enough for her to judge that all is OK and she can leave...but wait!
she notices the bedroom door was
open (approximately 60 degrees).
She starts to close it and it slams. Considering the patio doors had caused a draft, she checks these doors but they are closed. KM returns to the bedroom and opens the door to check the children were not disturbed by the noise.
At this point, she notices that Madeleine is missing.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Phew! thank goodness for the moving door, otherwise who knows when Madeleine's disappearance would have been noticed.
what a gratuitously nasty post.
-
All that whooshing and slamming. Must have given Kate a bit of a fright. Strange then that she didn’t mention it in her first statement. In fact I think the media was the first to know.
your new avatar is illegible. You’ll need to try harder if you want people to read it / be wound up by it.
-
what a gratuitously nasty post.
Truthful though.
-
Truthful though.
I’m glad you are not disputing the nasty tone of it. So much for your objectivity.
-
I’m glad you are not disputing the nasty tone of it. So much for your objectivity.
If all you can think of doing is to complain about my attitude feel free. I'm used to your sanctimonious attitude now. Darn useful those moving doors, weren't they?
-
If all you can think of doing is to complain about my attitude feel free. I'm used to your sanctimonious attitude now. Darn useful those moving doors, weren't they?
Useful in what way? To whom? What are you insinuating?
-
More detail emerged in the joint statement produced between 4th and 9th May, and handed to the PJ on 10th.
She enters through the closed patio entrance, with the curtains closed. She crosses the living area, and there is no noise from the children's bedroom. She is about to leave,
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Once again, silence seems to be enough for her to judge that all is OK and she can leave...but wait!
she notices the bedroom door was
open (approximately 60 degrees).
She starts to close it and it slams. Considering the patio doors had caused a draft, she checks these doors but they are closed. KM returns to the bedroom and opens the door to check the children were not disturbed by the noise.
At this point, she notices that Madeleine is missing.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Phew! thank goodness for the moving door, otherwise who knows when Madeleine's disappearance would have been noticed.
I am rather missing the point you are trying to make in relation to discussion of the topic of the thread.
In the OP I made the observation about the amount of pertinent material which is discussed on the forum with sometimes very valid observations being made ~ which then vanish into the outer ether only to return as 'mysteries' at a later date. As though nothing had been learned previously, almost as if the sum of knowledge is never added to but exists only to be subtracted from.
You have raised pertinent points in your post. But I thought we had already taken note in this current thread (not one tucked away and forgotten) the circumstances of the cites supplied by you.
We already know Kate was about to leave. That is why she described her action of pulling the bedroom door towards her causing it to slam shut.
You unsubtly note "Once again, silence seems to be enough for her to judge that all is OK and she can leave...but wait!
Phew! thank goodness for the moving door, otherwise who knows when Madeleine's disappearance would have been noticed."
And therein lies the rub with the observation that depending on circumstances it would have been perfectly possible that Madeleine's absence might not have been noticed until breakfast time on the morning of the 4th.
And that would have led an entirely different set of circumstances to ensue a a result. But it happened as Kate said it did although it was denied for years. Books have been written to that effect. How strange!
-
If all you can think of doing is to complain about my attitude feel free. I'm used to your sanctimonious attitude now. Darn useful those moving doors, weren't they?
It was a longer time coming than usual. But here we are at thread disruption yet again.
I am missing entirely what your allusion is to "those moving doors". Care to explain.
-
I am rather missing the point you are trying to make in relation to discussion of the topic of the thread.
In the OP I made the observation about the amount of pertinent material which is discussed on the forum with sometimes very valid observations being made ~ which then vanish into the outer ether only to return as 'mysteries' at a later date. As though nothing had been learned previously, almost as if the sum of knowledge is never added to but exists only to be subtracted from.
You have raised pertinent points in your post. But I thought we had already taken note in this current thread (not one tucked away and forgotten) the circumstances of the cites supplied by you.
We already know Kate was about to leave. That is why she described her action of pulling the bedroom door towards her causing it to slam shut.
You unsubtly note "Once again, silence seems to be enough for her to judge that all is OK and she can leave...but wait!
Phew! thank goodness for the moving door, otherwise who knows when Madeleine's disappearance would have been noticed."
And therein lies the rub with the observation that depending on circumstances it would have been perfectly possible that Madeleine's absence might not have been noticed until breakfast time on the morning of the 4th.
And that would have led an entirely different set of circumstances to ensue a a result. But it happened as Kate said it did although it was denied for years. Books have been written to that effect. How strange!
Yes, Madeleine's disappearance was discovered by Kate at around 10pm thanks to a moving door, and Gerry saw Madeleine at 9pm thanks to a moving door. That door explaining why they actually looked at their children that night.
-
Yes, Madeleine's disappearance was discovered by Kate at around 10pm thanks to a moving door, and Gerry saw Madeleine at 9pm thanks to a moving door. That door explaining why they actually looked at their children that night.
Do you really think they needed to invent a moving door to give as a reason for looking in at their children? After all you seem to think it odd that they wouldn’t have looked at their kids otherwise so all they needed to say was they looked in on their kids, no moving door needed.
-
Do you really think they needed to invent a moving door to give as a reason for looking in at their children? After all you seem to think it odd that they wouldn’t have looked at their kids otherwise so all they needed to say was they looked in on their kids, no moving door needed.
It would certainly help if there was a reason for the moving door.
-
It would certainly help if there was a reason for the moving door.
Your reply does not address my point. There was no requirement for a moving door in the abduction narrative. Do you actually believe Gerry and Kate got together when plotting the so called fake abduction and agreed to invent this element? Do you really think they were that calculating? I guess you do.
-
Yes, Madeleine's disappearance was discovered by Kate at around 10pm thanks to a moving door, and Gerry saw Madeleine at 9pm thanks to a moving door. That door explaining why they actually looked at their children that night.
Does it? Perhaps to you.
The fact remains that the accuracy of witness statements appear to be acceptable to you when you can make up something pejorative using their detail. Very, very odd.
Anyway, given the very detailed statements given by the eye witnesses ~ why do you suppose Amaral wrote the book he did about them! Apparently claiming his disbelief of statements borne out by science and which funnily enough the Rebelo investigation did believe.
Which leads me to the information scattered throughout the threads on the forum which disses the foundation of Amaral's firmly proclaimed but mistaken interpretation regarding Kate and the bedroom window.
Do you remember that one? because I certainly do!
-
It would certainly help if there was a reason for the moving door.
What a cynic you are. Try some lateral thinking instead of that one track mind.
Thanks for the lists. 8((()*/
-
It would certainly help if there was a reason for the moving door.
Why are you ignoring facts?
-
Why are you ignoring facts?
I check my facts using the information available to me. That's how I know where every Ocean Club guest was staying; by consulting the company's records.
-
It would certainly help if there was a reason for the moving door.
This is my thoughts on the moving door.
The McCann's leave about 8.30 leaving the bedroom door a little open. One of the friends check the children by listening by the window of the bedroom but not going in. The abductor thinking he has about 30 minutes before the next check, goes into the apartment moving the door as he goes in. The abductor is then alerted to Gerry's check which he was not expecting. He either leaves the apartment by the front door or hides in the apartment. Gerry puts the door back to its original place and leaves. The abductor then goes into the bedroom moving the door again, he also opens the window incase he is surprised by another visit of someone checking the children, he opens it to have a means of escape if he is cornered. The abductor takes Madeleine he either passes her through the window or he opens the front door and takes her after he has opened it then shuts front door.
-
This is my thoughts on the moving door.
The McCann's leave about 8.30 leaving the bedroom door a little open. One of the friends check the children by listening by the window of the bedroom but not going in. The abductor thinking he has about 30 minutes before the next check, goes into the apartment moving the door as he goes in. The abductor is then alerted to Gerry's check which he was not expecting. He either leaves the apartment by the front door or hides in the apartment. Gerry puts the door back to its original place and leaves. The abductor then goes into the bedroom moving the door again, he also opens the window incase he is surprised by another visit of someone checking the children, he opens it to have a means of escape if he is cornered. The abductor takes Madeleine he either passes her through the window or he opens the front door and takes her after he has opened it then shuts front door.
I like your analysis. What you are saying is possible, but I don't think Madeleine was passed through the window, too difficult. I think she was carried out via the front door. The fact that Madekeines head moved from the lifters right arm to Tannermans left arm supports this. To pass her through the window would require Madeleine being being in an upright position with the lifters hands under her ampits IMO. Her body was too long tp pas through the narrow gap of the window and there was insufficient foot space for the stability of the lifter, between the bottom of the bed and the chair by the window IMO
... and the quickest easiest way would be straight out of the front door.
You have a good analytical brain. Lace. What do you think?
-
This is my thoughts on the moving door.
The McCann's leave about 8.30 leaving the bedroom door a little open. One of the friends check the children by listening by the window of the bedroom but not going in. The abductor thinking he has about 30 minutes before the next check, goes into the apartment moving the door as he goes in. The abductor is then alerted to Gerry's check which he was not expecting. He either leaves the apartment by the front door or hides in the apartment. Gerry puts the door back to its original place and leaves. The abductor then goes into the bedroom moving the door again, he also opens the window incase he is surprised by another visit of someone checking the children, he opens it to have a means of escape if he is cornered. The abductor takes Madeleine he either passes her through the window or he opens the front door and takes her after he has opened it then shuts front door.
And your evidence is? None!
-
And your evidence is? None!
It’s a theory which doesn’t require actual evidence. A bit like Amaral’s theory of calpol overdose, accident and body being frozen and then moved in a hire car weeks later for which there was also no evidence, however Lace’s theory is a million times more plausible.
-
It’s a theory which doesn’t require actual evidence. A bit like Amaral’s theory of calpol overdose, accident and body being frozen and then moved in a hire car weeks later for which there was also no evidence, however Lace’s theory is a million times more plausible.
It's a perhaps then. Perhaps, on the other hand, Madeleine did visit the bathroom between 8.30 and 9pm. That would also explain why she was lying on top of the covers at 9.05pm when her mother says she was snuggled underneath them when she last saw her.
-
It's a perhaps then. Perhaps, on the other hand, Madeleine did visit the bathroom between 8.30 and 9pm. That would also explain why she was lying on top of the covers at 9.05pm when her mother says she was snuggled underneath them when she last saw her.
She was lying on top of the covers at 9.05pm? Do you have a cite?
-
It's a perhaps then. Perhaps, on the other hand, Madeleine did visit the bathroom between 8.30 and 9pm. That would also explain why she was lying on top of the covers at 9.05pm when her mother says she was snuggled underneath them when she last saw her.
Have you deducted this from the files?
-
Have you deducted this from the files?
I have checked Gerry’s 10th May statement and he does not say Madeleine was on top of the covers so I think she is claiming opinion as fact.
-
"Madeleine was lying at the top of the bed and the covers were folded down"
Madeleine was here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY&t=650s
In "madeleine" Kate McCann describes her daughter as "snuggling down" which seems strange if her covers were folded back.
Gerry says he never actually looked in at the children before the evening of 3rd.
Madeleine was here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY&t=650s
-
"Madeleine was lying at the top of the bed and the covers were folded down"
Madeleine was here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY&t=650s
In "madeleine" Kate McCann describes her daughter as "snuggling down" which seems strange if her covers were folded back.
Gerry says he never actually looked in at the children before the evening of 3rd.
Madeleine was here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY&t=650s
who said that? It doesn’t say she was on top of the covers, just that they were folded down.
-
who said that? It doesn’t say she was on top of the covers, just that they were folded down.
Sorry, can't find it just now.
-
It's a perhaps then. Perhaps, on the other hand, Madeleine did visit the bathroom between 8.30 and 9pm. That would also explain why she was lying on top of the covers at 9.05pm when her mother says she was snuggled underneath them when she last saw her.
Or it could mean the abductor took her out from under the covers but left her on top of the covers when Gerry unexpectedly did his check?
-
And your evidence is? None!
I said at the beginning of my post that it was 'my thoughts' if you don't agree just say so.
-
Or it could mean the abductor took her out from under the covers but left her on top of the covers when Gerry unexpectedly did his check?
I don't think Gerry meant she was on top of the covers but that she was in bed with the covers pulled down. And what if she had got up and gone to the loo and got back into bed? Strange behaviour for a "heavily sedated" child imo... *%87
On the other hand as you say the pulled down covers could be evidence that she had been tampered with by an intruder prior to Gerry's check.
-
Or it could mean the abductor took her out from under the covers but left her on top of the covers when Gerry unexpectedly did his check?
Why didn't she wake up?
-
Why didn't she wake up?
heavily sedated with Calpol, remember?
-
Why didn't the child carried by Tannerman wake up? Why doesn't any sleeping child picked up by an adult wake up? Why. why, why? One of life's great mysteries....
-
This is my thoughts on the moving door.
The McCann's leave about 8.30 leaving the bedroom door a little open. One of the friends check the children by listening by the window of the bedroom but not going in. The abductor thinking he has about 30 minutes before the next check, goes into the apartment moving the door as he goes in. The abductor is then alerted to Gerry's check which he was not expecting. He either leaves the apartment by the front door or hides in the apartment. Gerry puts the door back to its original place and leaves. The abductor then goes into the bedroom moving the door again, he also opens the window incase he is surprised by another visit of someone checking the children, he opens it to have a means of escape if he is cornered. The abductor takes Madeleine he either passes her through the window or he opens the front door and takes her after he has opened it then shuts front door.
What are your thoughts then on?
Ok, the venturi effect blew the curtains, and there was a wind blowing.
She searched the apartment for ten minutes [didn't look out the front door to a car park] but looked out the window leaving the window open and the curtains blowing twins still inside she ran to the tapas bar.
Then returned and closed the window.
What are your thoughts on that?
-
Why didn't she wake up?
Either abductor sedated her or she was just in a deep sleep. Madeleine had a very busy day on Thursday she went to the beach with her parents then went on a boat ride twice, sea air can make you tired.
-
What are your thoughts then on?
Ok, the venturi effect blew the curtains, and there was a wind blowing.
She searched the apartment for ten minutes [didn't look out the front door to a car park] but looked out the window leaving the window open and the curtains blowing twins still inside she ran to the tapas bar.
Then returned and closed the window.
What are your thoughts on that?
Very panicked, very frightened woman.
-
Very panicked, very frightened woman.
Yes, well I don't doubt that for one minute....she had a lot to panic and be frightened for it seems.
-
Yes, well I don't doubt that for one minute....she had a lot to panic and be frightened for it seems.
Her daughter was missing from her bed and she was the first witness to that.
-
Her daughter was missing from her bed and she was the first witness to that.
Yes, seems so, then preceded to contaminate evidence it seems.
-
Yes, seems so, then preceded to contaminate evidence it seems.
You have proof of this, although almost certainly not.
-
You have proof of this, although almost certainly not.
Don't you think closing the window could have destroyed evidence?
Also letting 20-plus people into 5a was another stupid thing to do as it would contaminate - any evidence left by the so-called abductor.
kmc had spent over 10 mins searching the apartment ...she knew Maddie wasn't in there she knew Maddie had been taken.
So what was the point of letting them all in?
She left that window open and then left the twins alone....then shut it when she came back,
I don't need proof for that ........it happened
-
Don't you think closing the window could have destroyed evidence?
Also letting 20-plus people into 5a was another stupid thing to do as it would contaminate - any evidence left by the so-called abductor.
kmc had spent over 10 mins searching the apartment ...she knew Maddie wasn't in there she knew Maddie had been taken.
So what was the point of letting them all in?
She left that window open and then left the twins alone....then shut it when she came back,
I don't need proof for that ........it happened
We have gone over this before. Kate was in no physical condition to be acting rationally. You talk as though she would have all her wits about her after finding her child missing. Of course she wouldn't!!
What do you think happened? That Kate entered the apartment found Madeleine dead, hid her somewhere no one would find her then staged an abduction? All in ten minutes?
-
No one seems able to say what they think happened to Madeleine, they keep going over old ground, nit picking what the McCann's should have done, how they should have behaved, yet don't come up with a theory of what they believe the McCann's were supposed to have done. It's all very tedious.
-
Don't you think closing the window could have destroyed evidence?
Also letting 20-plus people into 5a was another stupid thing to do as it would contaminate - any evidence left by the so-called abductor.
kmc had spent over 10 mins searching the apartment ...she knew Maddie wasn't in there she knew Maddie had been taken.
So what was the point of letting them all in?
She left that window open and then left the twins alone....then shut it when she came back,
I don't need proof for that ........it happened
What happened? I would have been distraught if it was my child. Likely you wouldn't have been.
-
No one seems able to say what they think happened to Madeleine, they keep going over old ground, nit picking what the McCann's should have done, how they should have behaved, yet don't come up with a theory of what they believe the McCann's were supposed to have done. It's all very tedious.
And totally irrelevant. This is just the nasty side of humanity. If you can call it humanity. It will do them no good in the end.
-
No one seems able to say what they think happened to Madeleine, they keep going over old ground, nit picking what the McCann's should have done, how they should have behaved, yet don't come up with a theory of what they believe the McCann's were supposed to have done. It's all very tedious.
Exactly this. They refuse to nail down precisely what they think happened because they know it's impossible to describe a logical, plausible and coherent narrative of parental involvement. Far easier to simply insinuate and nit-pick over details. It's called not seeing the wood for the trees and it's what's kept the sceptic industry going for nearly 16 years.
-
No one seems able to say what they think happened to Madeleine, they keep going over old ground, nit picking what the McCann's should have done, how they should have behaved, yet don't come up with a theory of what they believe the McCann's were supposed to have done. It's all very tedious.
Perhaps there are those who find some of the McCann's words and actions peculiar, as did the PJ. There are clearly others who don't, as in Operation Grange. Why theories are needed I don't know. There was time between 6pm and 10pm for anything to have happened.
-
Perhaps there are those who find some of the McCann's words and actions peculiar, as did the PJ. There are clearly others who don't, as in Operation Grange. Why theories are needed I don't know. There was time between 6pm and 10pm for anything to have happened.
Why are you picking 6pm on May 3rd as the start time for "anything" to have happened? Do you rule nothing out even for example pre-meditated murder by both parents, satanic ritual killing, running off to start a new life, abduction by Mrs Fenn's niece, abduction by Amaral, Murat, Malinka, nothing?
-
Why are you picking 6pm on May 3rd as the start time for "anything" to have happened? Do you rule nothing out even for example pre-meditated murder by both parents, satanic ritual killing, running off to start a new life, abduction by Mrs Fenn's niece, abduction by Amaral, Murat, Malinka, nothing?
Madeleine was last seen by her creche worker at around 6pm.
-
Madeleine was last seen by her creche worker at around 6pm.
...then later, she was looking a bit flaccid when the Smiths saw her at 10:03.
-
We have gone over this before. Kate was in no physical condition to be acting rationally. You talk as though she would have all her wits about her after finding her child missing. Of course she wouldn't!!
What do you think happened? That Kate entered the apartment found Madeleine dead, hid her somewhere no one would find her then staged an abduction? All in ten minutes?
She had her wits about her to search the apartment for ten minutes...ten minutes is a very long time to search such a small space.
-
What happened? I would have been distraught if it was my child. Likely you wouldn't have been.
Seeing you asked... I would have been devastated in a heap screaming for help.
I doubt very much I would have had the energy from despair.. to search for ten minutes and then run to tapas.
-
Seeing you asked... I would have been devastated in a heap screaming for help.
I doubt very much I would have had the energy from despair.. to search for ten minutes and then run to tapas.
What you wouldn't search the apartment? The first thing anyone would do was to search to see if the child would be in the apartment. Kate ran to get help another normal thing for someone to do.
You are clutching at straws.
-
What you wouldn't search the apartment? The first thing anyone would do was to search to see if the child would be in the apartment. Kate ran to get help another normal thing for someone to do.
You are clutching at straws.
Not for ten minutes....how ever many places were there to look ffs
As for clutching at straws....why ever would I do that.
You call it nitpicking......but that wasnt the only unusual behavior it seem .was it.
-
Madeleine was last seen by her creche worker at around 6pm.
how do you know she's telling the truth and isn't in on it too? Anything could have happened remember?
-
Not for ten minutes....how ever many places were there to look ffs
As for clutching at straws....why ever would I do that.
You call it nitpicking......but that wasnt the only unusual behavior it seem .was it.
I very much doubt it was actually 10 minutes - it probably just seemed like it at the time.
-
how do you know she's telling the truth and isn't in on it too? Anything could have happened remember?
She had a piece of paper with Kate McCann's signature on it. It says Kate McCann agreed that the nanny handed Madeleine into her mother's care at 5.30pm on 3rd May.
-
I very much doubt it was actually 10 minutes - it probably just seemed like it at the time.
It was 10 minutes gmcc was about to go look for her....she was gone that long.
Mind you wasn't he longer than should have been [on the check before] when kmc thought he was watching football.
-
She had a piece of paper with Kate McCann's signature on it. It says Kate McCann agreed that the nanny handed Madeleine into her mother's care at 5.30pm on 3rd May.
And yet there's a whole sub-set of Dog Believers that are adamant Madeleine died days earlier - surely their opinion is equally as valid as mine (that she was abducted by a stranger) or yours (that anything could have happened after 6pm)?
-
Not for ten minutes....how ever many places were there to look ffs
As for clutching at straws....why ever would I do that.
You call it nitpicking......but that wasnt the only unusual behavior it seem .was it.
You find it unusual because you believe Kate is lying, there was no unusual behaviour as far as I can tell.
Please give your account of what you believe happened, you have enough to say but nothing to back it up.
Cite for 10 minutes please.
-
And yet there's a whole sub-set of Dog Believers that are adamant Madeleine died days earlier - surely their opinion is equally as valid as mine (that she was abducted by a stranger) or yours (that anything could have happened after 6pm)?
So what? Why should I care what others think?
-
And yet there's a whole sub-set of Dog Believers that are adamant Madeleine died days earlier - surely their opinion is equally as valid as mine (that she was abducted by a stranger) or yours (that anything could have happened after 6pm)?
Well, there is a saying.
Don't believe everything you hear
There are always three sides to a story.
Yours theres and the truth.
-
So what? Why should I care what others think?
If you weren’t interested in other peoples’ opinions then what on earth are you doing on a forum like this arguing with them day in day out? Why are you a member of CMOMM if you’re completely indifferent to their lunatic opinions?
-
Well, there is a saying.
Don't believe everything you hear
There are always three sides to a story.
Yours theres and the truth.
There are those who are sure they know the truth. Some are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, and some (not all) of those think she's still alive. Some think she died before 3rd of May, some that she died on that day. None of them can prove they're right though.
-
If you weren’t interested in other peoples’ opinions then what on earth are you doing on a forum like this arguing with them day in day out? Why are you a member of CMOMM if you’re completely indifferent to their lunatic opinions?
I have my reasons just as everyone else does.
-
I have my reasons just as everyone else does.
and I’m sure they’re incredibly worthy,
-
There are those who are sure they know the truth. Some are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, and some (not all) of those think she's still alive. Some think she died before 3rd of May, some that she died on that day. None of them can prove they're right though.
Thanks for stating the obvious. The only people who can prove what happened are those actually involved in investigating Madeleine’s disappearance. All of those people seem pretty convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger based on the entirety of the evidence they have amassed over the years. Obviously you don’t care what they think, I mean why should you?
-
Thanks for stating the obvious. The only people who can prove what happened are those actually involved in investigating Madeleine’s disappearance. All of those people seem pretty convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger based on the entirety of the evidence they have amassed over the years. Obviously you don’t care what they think, I mean why should you?
There may indeed have been evidence amassed over the years in support of their theory. The problem is that their theory was presented to them as a fact.
-
There may indeed have been evidence amassed over the years in support of their theory. The problem is that their theory was presented to them as a fact.
What utter rubbish. Who do you think presented it to the police as fact? Was it presented as fact to the Germans as well?
-
What utter rubbish. Who do you think presented it to the police as fact? Was it presented as fact to the Germans as well?
I've given my reasons why I don't think Operation Grange reached their conclusion about a stranger abduction by examining the evidence. I know that it won't have any effect upon dyed in the wool McCann supporters, but some might one day remember what I said.
-
I've given my reasons why I don't think Operation Grange reached their conclusion about a stranger abduction by examining the evidence. I know that it won't have any effect upon dyed in the wool McCann supporters, but some might one day remember what I said.
you claimed abduction was presented to the police as fact. By whom? Second time of asking.
-
Ask Colin Sutton. He doesn't know the answer, but he knows it happened.
-
I've given my reasons why I don't think Operation Grange reached their conclusion about a stranger abduction by examining the evidence. I know that it won't have any effect upon dyed in the wool McCann supporters, but some might one day remember what I said.
Remember the Venturi Effect?
You know the situation described by Kate when she carried out her ten pm listening check on the children.
The report she gave is evidence.
Unfortunately Amaral and his team of investigators didn't believe it.
When Operation Grange took over and assessed evidence such as this, I think they reached a different conclusion from Amaral but which I think may possibly have concurred with that reached by Rebelo.
The point is that Operation Grange was tasked with reviewing all the evidence and from that would determine whether it was worth proceeding to take the case forward or not.
Investigative review
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
In the event THE EVIDENCE which the Portuguese overlooked was sufficient to justify a case investigating STRANGER ABDUCTION.
Among this ignored evidence to name but a very few were- witness statements such as those of Kate McCann and Jane Tanner
- Dr Totman who was carrying his child home from the night creche
- burglaries - two of which had been carried out in the same apartment block from which Madeleine disappeared
- petty thefts and sexual assaults on children carried out in holiday accommodation
You have absolutely nothing to support your oft repeated assumption which I think is erroneous regarding Operation Grange.
NOT ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
The investigation into Madeleine McCann's abduction was opened and was evidence based. You can think what you like and base your opinion solely on hearsay and opinion, that is your prerogative. But please don't expect anyone to go along with your personal certainties of which you are incapable of providing one iota of supporting evidence.
-
Ask Colin Sutton. He doesn't know the answer, but he knows it happened.
Note what I have said about hearsay and opinion and the specific denial of evidence which science proved happened as the witness described.
-
Madeleine was last seen by her creche worker at around 6pm.
Apart from Kate, Gerry and the twins, I think David was the last to see her at OC, wasn't he?
-
Ask Colin Sutton. He doesn't know the answer, but he knows it happened.
Well that makes very little sense for a start. So when you claim that abduction was presented to the police as fact you are just relying on the words of a man who can provide no evidence whatsoever to back up his own claim. Am I supposed to take you (or him) seriously?
-
Well that makes very little sense for a start. So when you claim that abduction was presented to the police as fact you are just relying on the words of a man who can provide no evidence whatsoever to back up his own claim. Am I supposed to take you (or him) seriously?
The evidence is the remit, written before the investigation was completed.
-
The evidence is the remit, written before the investigation was completed.
Who wrote the remit? Presumably you don’t think the police did, so who? Incidentally your evidence for this conspiracy theory amounts to the use of one word in a paragraph. It’s hardly overwhelming proof is it?
-
Who wrote the remit? Presumably you don’t think the police did, so who? Incidentally your evidence for this conspiracy theory amounts to the use of one word in a paragraph. It’s hardly overwhelming proof is it?
I think it was a policeman, and I don't think there was a conspiracy, which suggests a plot. That 'one word' ensured that the crime being investigated was the one Madeleine's parents wanted to be investigated. David Cameron's stated intention was to help them, after all.
-
I think it was a policeman, and I don't think there was a conspiracy, which suggests a plot. That 'one word' ensured that the crime being investigated was the one Madeleine's parents wanted to be investigated. David Cameron's stated intention was to help them, after all.
You don't think it was a conspiracy but now you're dragging David Cameron into it. It's laughable. The remit was to find out what happened to Madeleine first and foremost. If they'd stumbled across a secret recording in which Gerry confessed to another member of the Tapas group that he'd thrown her body in the bin you still think that because of the word "abduction" in the remit the police would have to continue looking for a stranger abductor? Because of the entirely inflexible remit and because Cameron wanted to help the McCanns? Is that your firm belief?
-
In the White House Farm case the police began their investigation believing it was a murder-suicide. That was their working theory and the lead detective was absolutely convinced by it, however not all detectives were, and eventually evidence was discovered in the course of the investigation which cast doubt on this theory and it was overturned when police started to build a case against Jeremy Bamber. If police remits and theories are cast in stone from the off then Jeremy Bamber would never have been charged let alone imprisoned for most of his life.
-
You don't think it was a conspiracy but now you're dragging David Cameron into it. It's laughable. The remit was to find out what happened to Madeleine first and foremost. If they'd stumbled across a secret recording in which Gerry confessed to another member of the Tapas group that he'd thrown her body in the bin you still think that because of the word "abduction" in the remit the police would have to continue looking for a stranger abductor? Because of the entirely inflexible remit and because Cameron wanted to help the McCanns? Is that your firm belief?
I don't think a game changer likea secret recording was likely, do you?
-
I don't think a game changer likea secret recording was likely, do you?
That is entirely beside the point. In your opinion it would seem that ANY evidence that pointed to an accident and cover up would be overlooked by the police because "abduction was presented as fact" and "David Cameron wanted to help the McCanns" - and the only reason you firmly believe this is because the word "abduction" was used in the written remit instead of the word "disappearance". It's scant evidence to support your belief (to say the least).
-
That is entirely beside the point. In your opinion it would seem that ANY evidence that pointed to an accident and cover up would be overlooked by the police because "abduction was presented as fact" and "David Cameron wanted to help the McCanns" - and the only reason you firmly believe this is because the word "abduction" was used in the written remit instead of the word "disappearance". It's scant evidence to support your belief (to say the least).
What evidence was there ever likely to be after umpteen years?
-
That is entirely beside the point. In your opinion it would seem that ANY evidence that pointed to an accident and cover up would be overlooked by the police because "abduction was presented as fact" and "David Cameron wanted to help the McCanns" - and the only reason you firmly believe this is because the word "abduction" was used in the written remit instead of the word "disappearance". It's scant evidence to support your belief (to say the least).
Even the Met's finest are unlikely to find what they're not looking for.
-
Even the Met's finest are unlikely to find what they're not looking for.
They are looking for Madeleine or what happened to her, end of.
-
They are looking for Madeleine or what happened to her, end of.
She was murdered by Christian Brueckner.
-
They are looking for Madeleine or what happened to her, end of.
Because she was abducted by a stranger. End of.
-
Because she was abducted by a stranger. End of.
LOL, at last you've finally come to your senses.
-
LOL, at last you've finally come to your senses.
Irony.
-
Irony.
No, really?!
(Sarcasm)
-
Remember the Venturi Effect?
You know the situation described by Kate when she carried out her ten pm listening check on the children.
The report she gave is evidence.
Unfortunately Amaral and his team of investigators didn't believe it.
When Operation Grange took over and assessed evidence such as this, I think they reached a different conclusion from Amaral but which I think may possibly have concurred with that reached by Rebelo.
The point is that Operation Grange was tasked with reviewing all the evidence and from that would determine whether it was worth proceeding to take the case forward or not.
Investigative review
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
In the event THE EVIDENCE which the Portuguese overlooked was sufficient to justify a case investigating STRANGER ABDUCTION.
Among this ignored evidence to name but a very few were- witness statements such as those of Kate McCann and Jane Tanner
- Dr Totman who was carrying his child home from the night creche
- burglaries - two of which had been carried out in the same apartment block from which Madeleine disappeared
- petty thefts and sexual assaults on children carried out in holiday accommodation
You have absolutely nothing to support your oft repeated assumption which I think is erroneous regarding Operation Grange.
NOT ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
The investigation into Madeleine McCann's abduction was opened and was evidence based. You can think what you like and base your opinion solely on hearsay and opinion, that is your prerogative. But please don't expect anyone to go along with your personal certainties of which you are incapable of providing one iota of supporting evidence.
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.[/color]
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
I took the final part of my thesis into OG on the day of Tony Bennetts trial which I attended.
This was in February 2013
I dont know how long it would take to make the decision, obtain permissions, then set up the investigation in Portugal ?
They probably had enough info before that date, in actual fact, because several folders and maps went in
-
I check my facts using the information available to me. That's how I know where every Ocean Club guest was staying; by consulting the company's records.
I think sometimes "the information available" can be rather confusing depending on- how it is initially recorded
- and how it is subsequently interpreted and understood
And in this "badly told story" nothing is more misunderstood by investigators than physical evidence available to them at the time.
For example sprinkled throughout the forum are many references to the way in which useable fingerprints have been misrepresented, much as Kate's experience of the Venturi Effect was.
Carana mentioned an anomaly here https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5123.msg182204#msg182204 and tracking posts on the theme brings to mind the conclusions reached within the threads of this forum but subsequently forgotten, which demonstrate how terribly misguided Amaral is.
-
I think sometimes "the information available" can be rather confusing depending on- how it is initially recorded
- and how it is subsequently interpreted and understood
And in this "badly told story" nothing is more misunderstood by investigators than physical evidence available to them at the time.
For example sprinkled throughout the forum are many references to the way in which useable fingerprints have been misrepresented, much as Kate's experience of the Venturi Effect was.
Carana mentioned an anomaly here https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5123.msg182204#msg182204 and tracking posts on the theme brings to mind the conclusions reached within the threads of this forum but subsequently forgotten, which demonstrate how terribly misguided Amaral is.
In my example no misunderstanding is possible. Each guest is recorded on the resort's system along with their apartment number.
It is about interpretation sometimes. I don't see a problem with the information referred to, however. It refers to two separate patio doors because there are two doors leading into the living room.
-
In my example no misunderstanding is possible. Each guest is recorded on the resort's system along with their apartment number.
It is about interpretation sometimes. I don't see a problem with the information referred to, however. It refers to two separate patio doors because there are two doors leading into the living room.
One of two things with reference to your post ~- either it illustrates my point perfectly about the misinterpretation and or confusion relating to evidence which can happen - and did - to quite inordinate extremes, in Madeleine's investigation.
Eye witness testimony was disbelieved, but the proof is that was a mistake. - or I am not the only member who remembers the solution to the puzzle regarding the finger prints about which my post was really quite unambiguous "For example sprinkled throughout the forum are many references to the way in which useable fingerprints have been misrepresented, much as Kate's experience of the Venturi Effect was."
Nothing wrong with your memory though, is there. Which I think probably explains your attempted deflection into arguing about the number of doors into the apartment living area.
The patio doors are definitely an issue but just not the one you choose to describe, nice try though!
-
One of two things with reference to your post ~- either it illustrates my point perfectly about the misinterpretation and or confusion relating to evidence which can happen - and did - to quite inordinate extremes, in Madeleine's investigation.
Eye witness testimony was disbelieved, but the proof is that was a mistake. - or I am not the only member who remembers the solution to the puzzle regarding the finger prints about which my post was really quite unambiguous "For example sprinkled throughout the forum are many references to the way in which useable fingerprints have been misrepresented, much as Kate's experience of the Venturi Effect was."
Nothing wrong with your memory though, is there. Which I think probably explains your attempted deflection into arguing about the number of doors into the apartment living area.
The patio doors are definitely an issue but just not the one you choose to describe, nice try though!
I don't think there is an issue with the patio doors.
-
I don't think there is an issue with the patio doors.
I don't. But I do wish you would make your mind up having posted ~ "It refers to two separate patio doors because there are two doors leading into the living room."
Where an issue has been previously indicated as I noted in the post which exited your comment ~ is with the fingerprint evidence on the glass. Which, as an aside, does not number amongst it any prints left by Madeleine.
-
I don't. But I do wish you would make your mind up having posted ~ "It refers to two separate patio doors because there are two doors leading into the living room."
Where an issue has been previously indicated as I noted in the post which exited your comment ~ is with the fingerprint evidence on the glass. Which, as an aside, does not number amongst it any prints left by Madeleine.
2 doors equal 1 set of patio doors. The previous discussion you linked to (for reasons which escape me) seemed to be speculation about someone leaving via the patio doors in the parent's bedroom. Their bedroom shutters, however, were closed. Unless Gerry closed them when he closed the ones in the children's bedroom, of course.
-
2 doors equal 1 set of patio doors. The previous discussion you linked to (for reasons which escape me) seemed to be speculation about someone leaving via the patio doors in the parent's bedroom. Their bedroom shutters, however, were closed. Unless Gerry closed them when he closed the ones in the children's bedroom, of course.
These doors were not hinged, were they?
With sliding patio doors, usually one if fixed, so it is NOT a door but just a window.
Perhaps you can confirm that there were actually two doors rather than just one and correct your post if you are incorrect.
TY.
-
These doors were not hinged, were they?
With sliding patio doors, usually one if fixed, so it is NOT a door but just a window.
Perhaps you can confirm that there were actually two doors rather than just one and correct your post if you are incorrect.
TY.
I think you're splitting hairs. Was entry into the living room via a a set of patio doors or a patio door and a window? How about the children's bedroom window? One opening window and one fixed window? It's still described as 'a window'.
-
2 doors equal 1 set of patio doors. The previous discussion you linked to (for reasons which escape me) seemed to be speculation about someone leaving via the patio doors in the parent's bedroom. Their bedroom shutters, however, were closed. Unless Gerry closed them when he closed the ones in the children's bedroom, of course.
Do pay attention.
The evidence in the files is that Amaral has perpetuated disinformation about the fingerprints found in the early hours after Madeleine's disappearance and has used it as one of the main planks for his slurs. The links which I have provided allude to that.
-
These doors were not hinged, were they?
With sliding patio doors, usually one if fixed, so it is NOT a door but just a window.
Perhaps you can confirm that there were actually two doors rather than just one and correct your post if you are incorrect.
TY.
As usual Sadie.
The information you have provided is spot on. There was one sliding door and one fixed pane making up the patio entrance. As photographed during the initial inspection recorded in the files and subsequently seen in documentaries and photographs taken during Rebelo's inspection when he took over after Amaral was sacked from the case.
-
I think you're splitting hairs. Was entry into the living room via a a set of patio doors or a patio door and a window? How about the children's bedroom window? One opening window and one fixed window? It's still described as 'a window'.
I think you are deflecting.
Most people are familiar with the various descriptions of the layout of the apartment and positioning of the fenestration and doors.
Better to sidetrack to that and divert from the forensic evidence found thereupon. I think that is very transparent of you. Why so worried about the positioning of the fingerprints; I think that may well because you know what the forum worked out about that some time ago and you would prefer it not to be revisited.
-
I think you're splitting hairs. Was entry into the living room via a a set of patio doors or a patio door and a window? How about the children's bedroom window? One opening window and one fixed window? It's still described as 'a window'.
I thought that youi would know the difference betwixt a door and a window. Seems you don't.
To help you, Gunit:
A window that side hinge opens down to the ground is called a door
A window that side hinge opens, but not down to the floor is called a window. You see it is not meant for paople to walk through
Same with sliding windows
Down to the floor, the window is called a door
Not down to the floor, the window is called a window
Clear now ?
-
Do pay attention.
The evidence in the files is that Amaral has perpetuated disinformation about the fingerprints found in the early hours after Madeleine's disappearance and has used it as one of the main planks for his slurs. The links which I have provided allude to that.
Sigh...back to Amaral again...What did he say about the fingerprints on or around the living room patio doors then?
-
Until DNA one of the the most reliable forensic evidence traces was as a rule, fingerprints. Which when used properly can be invaluable to identifying the perpatrator of a crime.
Although not in direct association with Madeleine's case Misty raised another nugget of information on the forum regarding Brueckner and evidence in one of the three aggravated rapes with which he is presently charged.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg684583#msg684583
EXCLUSIVE: Explosive fingerprint clue as Madeleine McCann suspect faces three new charges
New German TV doc will coincide with the three charges being levelled in February, including brutal rape of Irish girl Hazel Behan
THE prime suspect in the case of missing Madeleine McCann will be charged with three separate sex crimes in February.
The Olive Press can reveal that prosecutors in Germany have built up an ‘extremely strong case’ against the German, 45, in all three cases.
The strongest is hinged around his fingerprints being left in the apartment of the rape victim, Hazel Behan, it has emerged.
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters will accuse Brueckner of waking the 20-year-old in the middle of the night while wearing a mask and holding a knife to her throat.
Behan’s assailant – who spoke English with a German accent – had climbed up to her first floor balcony and slid open her patio doors, which she had left slightly ajar.
According to a new TV documentary on German channel Sat.1, he had then picked up one of her kitchen knives to threaten her not to scream.
He then proceeded to set up a video camera to record how he violently attacked and then raped her, during an ordeal that lasted over an hour.
By amazing fortune, the programme will reveal, while he had attempted to clean up the scene he left a partial fingerprint on the knife.
“Initially German police believed all the evidence had been destroyed,” said an investigator working on the film Der Fall Maddie – auf der Spur des Taters (meaning The Maddie Case – on the trail of the culprit).
“But while most of it was thrown away by Portuguese police, luckily the main bits had been uploaded onto a computer, including half a fingerprint, which links to Brueckner.
“It makes it a very clear case and the prosecutors in Germany have known about this for some time, since 2017 in fact.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/12/24/exclusive-explosive-fingerprint-clue-as-madeleine-mccann-suspect-faces-three-new-charges/
-
Until DNA one of the the most reliable forensic evidence traces was as a rule, fingerprints. Which when used properly can be invaluable to identifying the perpatrator of a crime.
Although not in direct association with Madeleine's case Misty raised another nugget of information on the forum regarding Brueckner and evidence in one of the three aggravated rapes with which he is presently charged.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg684583#msg684583
EXCLUSIVE: Explosive fingerprint clue as Madeleine McCann suspect faces three new charges
New German TV doc will coincide with the three charges being levelled in February, including brutal rape of Irish girl Hazel Behan
THE prime suspect in the case of missing Madeleine McCann will be charged with three separate sex crimes in February.
The Olive Press can reveal that prosecutors in Germany have built up an ‘extremely strong case’ against the German, 45, in all three cases.
The strongest is hinged around his fingerprints being left in the apartment of the rape victim, Hazel Behan, it has emerged.
Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters will accuse Brueckner of waking the 20-year-old in the middle of the night while wearing a mask and holding a knife to her throat.
Behan’s assailant – who spoke English with a German accent – had climbed up to her first floor balcony and slid open her patio doors, which she had left slightly ajar.
According to a new TV documentary on German channel Sat.1, he had then picked up one of her kitchen knives to threaten her not to scream.
He then proceeded to set up a video camera to record how he violently attacked and then raped her, during an ordeal that lasted over an hour.
By amazing fortune, the programme will reveal, while he had attempted to clean up the scene he left a partial fingerprint on the knife.
“Initially German police believed all the evidence had been destroyed,” said an investigator working on the film Der Fall Maddie – auf der Spur des Taters (meaning The Maddie Case – on the trail of the culprit).
“But while most of it was thrown away by Portuguese police, luckily the main bits had been uploaded onto a computer, including half a fingerprint, which links to Brueckner.
“It makes it a very clear case and the prosecutors in Germany have known about this for some time, since 2017 in fact.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/12/24/exclusive-explosive-fingerprint-clue-as-madeleine-mccann-suspect-faces-three-new-charges/
“But while most of it was thrown away by Portuguese police, luckily the main bits had been uploaded onto a computer, including half a fingerprint, which links to Brueckner."
Well this can't be true, there's no way the PJ could have obtained this partial finger print. I have it on good authority, from two senior modorators no less, that the PJ didn't bother to investigate the rape of Behan.
-
“But while most of it was thrown away by Portuguese police, luckily the main bits had been uploaded onto a computer, including half a fingerprint, which links to Brueckner."
Well this can't be true, there's no way the PJ could have obtained this partial finger print. I have it on good authority, from two senior modorators no less, that the PJ didn't bother to investigate the rape of Behan.
The information that the Policia Judiciaria ignored the crime comes directly from the mouth of the rape victim herself and my opinion that is a very damning claim!
We have all seen it, we have all heard her and we have all read it. But you managed to miss it all to print lies on the forum instead.
Hazel Behan was raped in Portugal yet no one there seems to care
I watched the Late, Late Show in awe as a brave young woman, Hazel Behan, recounted her horrific account of being raped, by a masked intruder, in Portugal some years ago.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-20309281.html
Letter
I have been involved with the victim-support movement since it was set up in 1984.
I have also been a regular visitor to Portugal, holidaying there every year since 2000. I think it is a beautiful country, with wonderful, warm people. But this attack sickens me on so many levels:
I would like to pose the following questions to the Portuguese ambassador to Ireland, the Portuguese department of justice, the Portuguese police and the Portuguese tourist board:
1. Since the attack, what steps have been taken to bring the perpetrator to justice?
2. Was any action taken against the police officers who dealt with her in the immediate aftermath of her rape?
3. Was this investigation typical of the Portuguese approach to an horrific attack on a young woman asleep in her own home?
4. What civilised country permits a female victim of rape to be treated in such a medieval manner?
5. Why were no female police officers involved?
6. Why was there no DNA evidence collected?
7. Is Portugal more concerned about its tourist image and unwelcome publicity, than bringing to justice such a monster?
8. Do you not owe it to the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit your country to investigate this?
9. Do your people not want to feel safe in their beds at night ?
I believe that Hazel Behan should be given an apology and her case should be re-opened.
I would also like to ask our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Charles Flanagan, and Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald if they have raised this matter with the Portuguese authorities?
The bravery of Ms Behan deserves a more proactive response than she has experienced to date.
Jack Keaveney
Betaghstown Wood
Bettystown
Co Meath
-
Boo hoo opinion letter.
I care not in the slightest what Mr Anger from Manchester has to say to be honest.
-
Boo hoo opinion letter.
I care not in the slightest what Mr Anger from Manchester has to say to be honest.
Ditto. I don't care about what you have to say, especially when all of it is utter rubbish. You are just a cross that some of us have to bear.
-
Ditto. I don't care about what you have to say, especially when all of it is utter rubbish. You are just a cross that some of us have to bear.
You don't have to stay here & read my posts you know. You're free to leave whenever you like.
-
Ditto. I don't care about what you have to say, especially when all of it is utter rubbish. You are just a cross that some of us have to bear.
It's good to know that there are decent men in the world who recognise the seriousness of sex crimes against women and who don't treat the crime of rape as a bit of a joke and basically the woman's fault - good on John Keaveney for taking the time to write his letter.
-
Thank You.
The troll got something right at last 8((()*/
-
It's always a bonus when your hard work is recognised and appreciated
-
So if I'd replied that, in my opinion, Eleanor is a miserable old Witch. The mods here would have been fine with that would they? No warning points for me?
I can only assume not, so I think I'll be less restrained when replying to personal insults in future.
Thanks for the clarification.
-
So if I'd replied that, in my opinion, Eleanor is a miserable old Witch. The mods here would have been fine with that would they? No warning points for me?
I can only assume not, so I think I'll be less restrained when replying to personal insults in future.
Thanks for the clarification.
You post another disgusting sexual post about me, like the one you quietly posted one middle of the night a few weeks back and it will go straight to David Cameron. I will not tell you; it will just happen. I notice that you deleted it before most Brits were awake, but VS saw it. Others members didn't, but it was seen all over the world. Sneaky.
When DC was prime minister he stopped all the disgusting posts that were being posted on a daily basis about me by a poster who has since left. He also posted disgusting posts about dear old Mum and Dad, who were dead years before Madeleine vanished: they were a couple who went out their way to help less fortunate people. You are not fit to clean their shoes.
You post another disgusting sexual post about me and it will go straight to David Cameron. I shall also add a few comments that you have made about others and about S.Y. I might send it to our new Prime Minister as well.
You do understand, don't you?
-
So if I'd replied that, in my opinion, Eleanor is a miserable old Witch. The mods here would have been fine with that would they? No warning points for me?
I can only assume not, so I think I'll be less restrained when replying to personal insults in future.
Thanks for the clarification.
Elli is NO witch. Unlike you, she is a caring person
Your problem is that Eleanor has a great mind and outclasses you with her witty and sharp answers ... She deflates you so easily with a few words... and imo, you are frustrated and jealous
-
Elli is NO witch. Unlike you, she is a caring person
Your problem is that Eleanor has a great mind and outclasses you with her witty and sharp answers ... She deflates you so easily with a few words... and imo, you are frustrated and jealous
One person's wit is another person's vulgar slang.