Sadie wrote:
'As the abductor almost certainly had a key, once he got the signal, he was in and out like a shot, only stopping to open the window and blinds.'
Hi Sadie,
Do you mean blinds or shutters?
Either way, why would the abductor open blinds/curtains/shutters and windows?
So the watcher gave the go ahead because they could not see Gerry Mccann? But could see Jeremy Wilkins? How did the watcher know he might not be a person who might go and check on the kids?What about Jane Tanner's testimony that Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry Mccann were NOT at the corner of the path but further up right outside the little gate, which Jeremy Wilkins testifies to as being the place the conversagion took place?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00786/jane-tanner-impress_786291c.jpg)
On May 4th "The entrance to the building where the apartments are is the exact place where she saw the man."
This could possibly mean the stairway up to the one apartment but especially as she used the word apartments in the plural it could just as likely (possibly more likely) mean the path from which there was an entrance to all the other ground floor apartments (via the patio doors) as in this photo.
*****
Your post above suggested Jane Tanner saw the man at the back alley! Which is just not true! As she saw him at the top of the road marked with number FIVE on her drawing
So no, it is NOT possibly more likely
On May 4th "The entrance to the building where the apartments are is the exact place where she saw the man."
This could possibly mean the stairway up to the one apartment but especially as she used the word apartments in the plural it could just as likely (possibly more likely) mean the path from which there was an entrance to all the other ground floor apartments (via the patio doors) as in this photo.
*****
Your post above suggested Jane Tanner saw the man at the back alley! Which is just not true! As she saw him at the top of the road marked with number FIVE on her drawing
So no, it is NOT possibly more likely
Dont worry about it gilet, i sure sadies theory is right
8((()*/
Sadies theory requires that the man have access to the balcony which I find improbable. I go with the accomplice theory though but he or she probably just stood out of sight at the top of the road and watched and then made for their car before realising that Tanner was coming up the road again.
Sadies theory requires that the man have access to the balcony which I find improbable. I go with the accomplice theory though but he or she probably just stood out of sight at the top of the road and watched and then made for their car before realising that Tanner was coming up the road again.
I think you will find that the balcony is in the stair well, and with access to anyone.
Sadies theory requires that the man have access to the balcony which I find improbable. I go with the accomplice theory though but he or she probably just stood out of sight at the top of the road and watched and then made for their car before realising that Tanner was coming up the road again.
I think you will find that the balcony is in the stair well, and with access to anyone.
My pleasure.
It has been suggested that one of the appartment occupiers might have been smoking on the star well, but this is hardly likely as each appartment had it's own balcony.
Oh thank you Eleanor i didn't realise that as it had not been explained. 8((()*/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.15 see posts 24 and 29
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif)
OK; Jez's actual map, so that was where Gerry and Jez stood chatting
This theory verifies my more recent thoughts that the watcher was on the balcony immediately across the road from 5A. ....and eliminates all the other possible watcher points
---------------------------------------
This abduction nearly failed, because the watcher couldn't see Gerry and gave the go ahead at the wrong time. Every other view point could see that corner and for the watcher to have been given the go ahead Gerry had to have been out of his view.
(http://i.imgur.com/ESVuvH5.png)
Link to photo location (http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=37.08891,-8.730613&spn=0.000928,0.002064&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=37.088802,-8.730823&panoid=Gw-Q0vkcngw9PameBJCtjw&cbp=12,152.7,,0,-0.47)
Ok you have the area, please open your own GE and zoom right in.
You will see a street lamp on the pavement nearthe balcony (small round circle}
This balcony was partially bathed in light from the very close sodium street light. The back part (southern end) of this balcony was in the shade. The watcher would have made sure he was in the shade.
From that shaded part he couldn't see Gerry and Jez, nor the emerging Jane ... so he gave the go ahead.
The getaway vehicle was in the little parking area behind the flats in which the balcony was. [directly across the road from the Reception to the Tapas] Immediately he had given the go ahead, he walked down and thru that block and its little garden. He crossed the garden to a gate which opened directly on to the little car park, straight into the van ... or 4 wheel drive ***
THe abductor had been skulking in/near the recess to the front door, which was in near blackness . As the abductor almost certainly had a key, once he got the signal, he was in and out like a shot, only stopping to open the window and blinds.
SNIP/-
Mmm, thank you Eleanor, praise indeed
You done good, our kid. I know how difficult it is for you to lay it all out, but this perfect.
Thank you Sadie. Well done. 8((()*/
Thank you to icabodcrane Also.
Hi Sadie,
Can I ask why the little car park to the south of the flats. Why not the car park on the north side which is easier to get to from the vantage point of the balcony? He or a she as you suggest could have parked anywhere near the LPG tank shown in the photo below. Having seen Tanner walking up the road all the driver had to do was to drive up and turn right and wait along there for the abductor to catch up. Then it was off to God knows where in the four hours it took for the PJ to get involved.
Do you think the lookout was more likely to have been female?
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
Undoubtedly he is calling the McCanns and all their friends liars - that goes without saying, he is a "sceptic".
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
Why do you insist there is no evidence of an abduction when there clearly is, unless of course you are calling the McCann's and everyone else that was there that night LIARS?
Thank you for presenting your ideas on where the alleged abductor went to Sadie.
In order that everyone can see your theory at a glance I have produced a new plan. I haven't personally visited Praia de Luz yet so am restricted by the limitations presented by Google Maps and the photos taken by the Google van.
I am assuming that the abductor could have gone through the hedge by the two satellite dishes.
(http://i.imgur.com/yclf37E.jpg)
There is a natural gap in the hedge which takes you down between the satellite dishes which anyone carrying a child could slip through. That is why I was hoping that some of you who had actually visited the location had explored this and taken other photos.
(http://i.imgur.com/DWtrM9n.jpg)
The bottom line is simple, there is no evidence of abduction, or the PJ or SY would have found it.
How do you explain SY's Andy Redwood's comments last year then? He says they are working on the theory that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Why would he say that if there was no evidence of abduction?
Was it established why the sniffer dogs did not follow this theoretical trail? But followed the trail around the apartment block and up the alley and down the street and to the car park that Madeleine had made some time between Monday and Wednesday?
Was it established why the sniffer dogs did not follow this theoretical trail? But followed the trail around the apartment block and up the alley and down the street and to the car park that Madeleine had made some time between Monday and Wednesday?
?? Bump
.... Poor old bundleman, left in the lurch!
My own view Sadie is that the southern car park is overlooked by far too many properties.John you may be right. When we visited it was exceedingly quiet, and our visit was in high season. The Mccanns were there in low or shoulder season, so likely it was even quieter, but I acept what you are saying.
Note the lamp standard where both GNR tracker dogs lost Madeleine's scent.
(http://i.imgur.com/4gcBkDZ.png)
.... Poor old bundleman, left in the lurch!
I would have thought that they would have had mobile telephones so as to be able to communicate in such an eventuality so does anyone know if there is a record of the mobile calls made in that vicinity at around 10pm that night?
The bottom line is simple, there is no evidence of abduction, or the PJ or SY would have found it.
How do you explain SY's Andy Redwood's comments last year then? He says they are working on the theory that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Why would he say that if there was no evidence of abduction?
So where's Madeleine ?
He also admitted she could be dead or alive.
Was it established why the sniffer dogs did not follow this theoretical trail? But followed the trail around the apartment block and up the alley and down the street and to the car park that Madeleine had made some time between Monday and Wednesday?
?? Bump
My own view on this Redblossom and the only possible reason for it is that Madeleine's feet never touched the ground as she was being carried waist high. An air scent would therefore be lost in the atmosphere by the time the doggies came around. Had she walked along the road then a semi-permanent trail would have been left behind.
I wonder what everyone else thinks about this?
I thought skin cells hair and sweat were shed all the time whether walking or being carried, I am no expert, so I too would like to hear other views as I feel it is very important
I thought skin cells hair and sweat were shed all the time whether walking or being carried, I am no expert, so I too would like to hear other views as I feel it is very important
I think you are right Redblossom, but I doubt that Madeleine sweated at all. I didn't as a child. As for hair and skin cells, they would be blown all over the place. This wasn't indoors, it was outside on a blustery evening.
I thought skin cells hair and sweat were shed all the time whether walking or being carried, I am no expert, so I too would like to hear other views as I feel it is very important
I think you are right Redblossom, but I doubt that Madeleine sweated at all. I didn't as a child. As for hair and skin cells, they would be blown all over the place. This wasn't indoors, it was outside on a blustery evening.
I suppose theyhave dogs for spring summer autumn and winter then
I thought skin cells hair and sweat were shed all the time whether walking or being carried, I am no expert, so I too would like to hear other views as I feel it is very important
I think you are right Redblossom, but I doubt that Madeleine sweated at all. I didn't as a child. As for hair and skin cells, they would be blown all over the place. This wasn't indoors, it was outside on a blustery evening.
I suppose theyhave dogs for spring summer autumn and winter then
Erm? Explain that comment please. Dont understand its relevance
In such blustery weather, personally, I would think that airborne scent is of little use, but scent from shoes on ground might be an altogether different matter.
But I dont know enough about it to be sure.
Do you?
In such blustery weather, personally, I would think that airborne scent is of little use, but scent from shoes on ground might be an altogether different matter.
But I dont know enough about it to be sure.
Do you?
Scent from shoes? Whose shoes?
That's what I think too. Madeleines scent was faint and in the air. It was a gusty night with winds up to 20mph. Most of the scent, maybe all had blown away. The abduction crew were far smellier and the lifter had almost certainly handled Madeleines blanket.
Before the abduction they had parked the van in that little car park and bundleman and possibly the lifter had walked that pathway between the apartment and the Tapas/garden section en route for the front door to 5A. A circuitous route ... but a hidden route.
No way of telling whether the scent was going or coming back, if you get my meaning. No knowing if the scent was Madeleine's , or the abduction crews. But more likely as Madeleine was carried, that it was the scent of the carriers, going either way.
OK, if you say so. So not tracking the sweaty feet of the sweaty man/woman who had handled Madeleines blanket? prefering the light scent of a little girl being carried. A little girl with no ground contact? Think about it.
Nigh night ... am off to bed
Thank you Redblossom. I know the trail well
Good night
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
Why do you insist there is no evidence of an abduction when there clearly is, unless of course you are calling the McCann's and everyone else that was there that night LIARS?
Well provide me with precise quantitative and unequivocal evidence of abduction.
Secondly, YOU do not know the Mccanns and associates told the truth. That is your belief, no more.
Beliefs are not evidence, and if you put all this rubbish up in court, you know where it would end up.
The bottom line is simple, there is no evidence of abduction, or the PJ or SY would have found it.
Hearsay is easy, but there is no substitute for evidence.
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
The bottom line is simple, there is no evidence of abduction, or the PJ or SY would have found it.
How do you explain SY's Andy Redwood's comments last year then? He says they are working on the theory that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Why would he say that if there was no evidence of abduction?
So where's Madeleine ?
He also admitted she could be dead or alive.
You did not answer the question. SY are working on the theory that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, that does not mean they know where Madeleine is, does it? Nor does the fact that she was abducted in a criminal act by a stranger preclude the fact that she may be alive or dead - what bit of this do you not actually grasp?
McCann "Sceptics" (absurdly) seem to believe that Redwood was positing two separate theories when he made this "alive or dead" comment - why are they being so wilfully and repeatedly dense?
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
Total poppy-cock Stephen. Certainly there is evidence of an abduction, you're problem is that you choose to ignore it in favour of a McCann "who dunnit?" scenario. They do say there is none so blind as those who cannot see!!!!!
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
Total poppy-cock Stephen. Certainly there is evidence of an abduction, you're problem is that you choose to ignore it in favour of a McCann "who dunnit?" scenario. They do say there is none so blind as those who cannot see!!!!!
There is more evidence pointing to abduction, than there is to the McCanns were involved
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
Total poppy-cock Stephen. Certainly there is evidence of an abduction, you're problem is that you choose to ignore it in favour of a McCann "who dunnit?" scenario. They do say there is none so blind as those who cannot see!!!!!
There is more evidence pointing to abduction, than there is to the McCanns were involved
seems to be more evidence that the McCanns are involved tahn it being abduction
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
Total poppy-cock Stephen. Certainly there is evidence of an abduction, you're problem is that you choose to ignore it in favour of a McCann "who dunnit?" scenario. They do say there is none so blind as those who cannot see!!!!!
There is more evidence pointing to abduction, than there is to the McCanns were involved
seems to be more evidence that the McCanns are involved tahn it being abduction
All this pure speculation.
There is no proof at all of an abduction.
You can spout various theories til the end of time.
However, there is no substitute for facts, and here other than flights of fancy, there are none.
If there were, the SY or PJ would have found some, and they clearly haven't.
Total poppy-cock Stephen. Certainly there is evidence of an abduction, you're problem is that you choose to ignore it in favour of a McCann "who dunnit?" scenario. They do say there is none so blind as those who cannot see!!!!!
There is more evidence pointing to abduction, than there is to the McCanns were involved
seems to be more evidence that the McCanns are involved tahn it being abduction
OK Iggy, instead of repeatedly uttering platitudes ... PROVE IT ... Show us some evidence
FACTS
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
Yes debunker, I know without firm evidence most of the beliefs on here are purely speculation.
Likewise, because of the lack of it, this case will probably never be solved.
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
Yes debunker, I know without firm evidence most of the beliefs on here are purely speculation.
Likewise, because of the lack of it, this case will probably never be solved.
Whereof we cannot speak thereof should we remain silent. A proposition from Wittgenstein.
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
Yes debunker, I know without firm evidence most of the beliefs on here are purely speculation.
Likewise, because of the lack of it, this case will probably never be solved.
Whereof we cannot speak thereof should we remain silent. A proposition from Wittgenstein.
From a fictional language, for a fictional abduction....
'taH pagh taHbe' '
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
Yes debunker, I know without firm evidence most of the beliefs on here are purely speculation.
Likewise, because of the lack of it, this case will probably never be solved.
Whereof we cannot speak thereof should we remain silent. A proposition from Wittgenstein.
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
Yes debunker, I know without firm evidence most of the beliefs on here are purely speculation.
Likewise, because of the lack of it, this case will probably never be solved.
Whereof we cannot speak thereof should we remain silent. A proposition from Wittgenstein.
Interesting quote to support censorship in this 21st century internet world. I am sure someone who was against thecaxton revolution will have said similar
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
Yes debunker, I know without firm evidence most of the beliefs on here are purely speculation.
Likewise, because of the lack of it, this case will probably never be solved.
Whereof we cannot speak thereof should we remain silent. A proposition from Wittgenstein.
From a fictional language, for a fictional abduction....
'taH pagh taHbe' '
You are a prat.
It is from the Tractatus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
Yes debunker, I know without firm evidence most of the beliefs on here are purely speculation.
Likewise, because of the lack of it, this case will probably never be solved.
Whereof we cannot speak thereof should we remain silent. A proposition from Wittgenstein.
Interesting quote to support censorship in this 21st century internet world. I am sure someone who was against thecaxton revolution will have said similar
Now. let me see,
The words of one of the greatest philosophers of the last century versus an unknown poster on the internet.
Difficult to make a rational decision!
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
Yes debunker, I know without firm evidence most of the beliefs on here are purely speculation.
Likewise, because of the lack of it, this case will probably never be solved.
Whereof we cannot speak thereof should we remain silent. A proposition from Wittgenstein.
Interesting quote to support censorship in this 21st century internet world. I am sure someone who was against thecaxton revolution will have said similar
Now. let me see,
The words of one of the greatest philosophers of the last century versus an unknown poster on the internet.
Difficult to make a rational decision!
you did avoid the point though, typical, and something said hundreds of years ago cannot relate to this world today unless given in exactly the same context
I have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
Ah but you cherry picked one sentence which has everything to do with your mainpreposition, ie shut upI have put out a theory Stephen.
Let's see yours 8(0(*
Your 'theory' as you call it sadie, is merely a flight of fancy, i.e. speculation.
There is no evidence of abduction.
If you have read between the lines, you know what I believe happened, but as is clear, the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as to whether it indicated a dead body or not. Inconclusive means precisely that. No proof either way.
My suspicions of the parents behaviour stem from early on, when they stayed in the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, rather than search for her. As a parent it would be the first thing I would do, not hiding away in the apartment til the following morning.
I can expect the response to that latter point, is they 'did search'. Well that is countermanded by the Jane Hill interview amongst others.many other people did on that night; local people,police holidaymakers, ex-pats. Also, they continued to search not just that night, but on subsequent days.
That is where my questioning of their behaviour started, but there is more.............................
And your beliefs are also mere speculation.
We do know that the Portuguese Legal system is quite clear- there is no indication of any crime committed by the McCanns.
Yes debunker, I know without firm evidence most of the beliefs on here are purely speculation.
Likewise, because of the lack of it, this case will probably never be solved.
Whereof we cannot speak thereof should we remain silent. A proposition from Wittgenstein.
Interesting quote to support censorship in this 21st century internet world. I am sure someone who was against thecaxton revolution will have said similar
Now. let me see,
The words of one of the greatest philosophers of the last century versus an unknown poster on the internet.
Difficult to make a rational decision!
you did avoid the point though, typical, and something said hundreds of years ago cannot relate to this world today unless given in exactly the same context
The Tractatus was published in 1921 and is as relevant today as it was then for Linguistic Philosophy- the meaning of meaning. Logical derivations do not decline in importance with age.
Emotive speculation, hardly.
proof of abduction, none.
I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.
They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.
Call that a search ?
NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.
Emotive speculation, hardly.
proof of abduction, none.
I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.
They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.
Call that a search ?
NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.
To Sadie
"Then up at the very first light searching"
Are you suggesting that he slept that night or merely waited 'til dawn to resume his search ?
Emotive speculation, hardly.
proof of abduction, none.
I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.
They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.
Call that a search ?
NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.
Greetings, Stephen. What is your take on Kate and Gerry McCann not even being formally arrested, never mind charged with anything?
Emotive speculation, hardly.
proof of abduction, none.
I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.
They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.
Call that a search ?
NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.
How cynical you are Stephen. We know he searched the garden area, the tennis Courts, the play area, the swimming pool area and the tapas area cos they are all one complex. What we dont know is how much else he searched because, as far as i know, no record was made.
We do know that he was with John Hill helping the GNR when they arrived. We also know that he went back to the apartment and that he and Kate broke down in tears. Further we know that they were there with the GNR for some/much of the time before the GNR left ...and doing the very sensible thing of trying to work out the time line to see if they could sort out the actual time when Madeleine was taken.
We also know that calls were made to family etc in the Uk and no doubt received back. That they moved out to Matt and ?Fionas apartment with the children.
I seem to remember that Gerry went round to some of the apartments telling friends, others, what had happened, no doubt hoping they would join the search. Who was it that sorted the photos out for the early posters? My bet is that it was Kate and Gerry. Can you imagine just what this was doing to him. He knew that JT had witnessed a man walking off with a little girl. A little girl, that resembled Madeleine.
I dont think Kate knew at that stage. He was carrying the lot on his shoulders.
Then up at the very first light searching.
Are you a parent Stephen? ... How could you be SO COLD as to say that they went for a stroll on the beach. What a crass thing to say
Where is your humanity?
Emotive speculation, hardly.
proof of abduction, none.
I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.
They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.
Call that a search ?
NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.
Greetings, Stephen. What is your take on Kate and Gerry McCann not even being formally arrested, never mind charged with anything?
Anything to say, Stephen? Seems like the esteemed PJ didn't have enough evidence to even arrest them. Discuss.
Emotive speculation, hardly.
proof of abduction, none.
I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.
They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.
Call that a search ?
NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.
How cynical you are Stephen. We know he searched the garden area, the tennis Courts, the play area, the swimming pool area and the tapas area cos they are all one complex. What we dont know is how much else he searched because, as far as i know, no record was made.
We do know that he was with John Hill helping the GNR when they arrived. We also know that he went back to the apartment and that he and Kate broke down in tears. Further we know that they were there with the GNR for some/much of the time before the GNR left ...and doing the very sensible thing of trying to work out the time line to see if they could sort out the actual time when Madeleine was taken.
We also know that calls were made to family etc in the Uk and no doubt received back. That they moved out to Matt and ?Fionas apartment with the children.
I seem to remember that Gerry went round to some of the apartments telling friends, others, what had happened, no doubt hoping they would join the search. Who was it that sorted the photos out for the early posters? My bet is that it was Kate and Gerry. Can you imagine just what this was doing to him. He knew that JT had witnessed a man walking off with a little girl. A little girl, that resembled Madeleine.
I dont think Kate knew at that stage. He was carrying the lot on his shoulders.
Then up at the very first light searching.
Are you a parent Stephen? ... How could you be SO COLD as to say that they went for a stroll on the beach. What a crass thing to say
Where is your humanity?
Haven't you sussed it yet sadie ?
I don't believe the Mccanns accounts of what happened that evening.
If Madeleine had been my child I would have searched through the night for her, they didn't, so don't pretend they did.
You believe the Mccanns, hook line and sink.
I don't.
Emotive speculation, hardly.
proof of abduction, none.
I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.
They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.
Call that a search ?
NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.
Greetings, Stephen. What is your take on Kate and Gerry McCann not even being formally arrested, never mind charged with anything?
Anything to say, Stephen? Seems like the esteemed PJ didn't have enough evidence to even arrest them. Discuss.
Well Rachel.
Proof of abduction ?
Discuss.
Emotive speculation, hardly.
proof of abduction, none.
I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.
They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.
Call that a search ?
NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.
Greetings, Stephen. What is your take on Kate and Gerry McCann not even being formally arrested, never mind charged with anything?
Anything to say, Stephen? Seems like the esteemed PJ didn't have enough evidence to even arrest them. Discuss.
Well Rachel.
Proof of abduction ?
Discuss.
No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.
The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.
You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.
You believe them, but it does not make it true.
It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.
All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.
So, nil points.
Emotive speculation, hardly.
proof of abduction, none.
I know he walked outside of the apartment sadie on his return to the apartment,big deal.
They went for a stroll on the beach the following morning.
Call that a search ?
NO, other people had done that during the night and continued to do so.
No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.
The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.
You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.
You believe them, but it does not make it true.
It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.
All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.
So, nil points.
No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.
The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.
You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.
You believe them, but it does not make it true.
It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.
All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.
So, nil points.
It's really getting up your nose that there is not one scintilla of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, isn't it? I wouldn't call not enough proof to even arrest someone (let alone charge them) "emotional rhetoric". I'd call it common decency in standing up for people against whom there is simply no evidence.
No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.
The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.
You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.
You believe them, but it does not make it true.
It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.
All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.
So, nil points.
It's really getting up your nose that there is not one scintilla of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, isn't it? I wouldn't call not enough proof to even arrest someone (let alone charge them) "emotional rhetoric". I'd call it common decency in standing up for people against whom there is simply no evidence.
Let's try again.
The disappearance of Madeleine is listed by the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.
There is no evidence of abduction, and the results of the forensics are inconclusive.
As it stands the case will not be solved.
The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that.
Lastly, if my comments on the case had no effect on you, you wouldn't reply, and you won't change my views, unless you can prove abduction.
No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.
The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.
You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.
You believe them, but it does not make it true.
It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.
All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.
So, nil points.
It's really getting up your nose that there is not one scintilla of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, isn't it? I wouldn't call not enough proof to even arrest someone (let alone charge them) "emotional rhetoric". I'd call it common decency in standing up for people against whom there is simply no evidence.
Let's try again.
The disappearance of Madeleine is listed by the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.
There is no evidence of abduction, and the results of the forensics are inconclusive.
As it stands the case will not be solved.
The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that.
Lastly, if my comments on the case had no effect on you, you wouldn't reply, and you won't change my views, unless you can prove abduction.
And as the Portuguese Prosecutor said, there were no indications of any crime committed by the McCanns. They were not guilty of criminal neglect and may be seen to be morally responsible for the consequences of their actions or inactions; but that depends on the moral stance and ethical beliefs of the mere individuals making statements about their culpability.
All that such statements such as your "The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that." mean is that some unidentified and unimportant poster on a site on the internet feels that his/her feelings have been aroused by the actions of people who they know of only through the press and forums. It has as much meaning as my feelings about a proposed marriage which I see as doomed- it really does not matter to anyone but me- it is really none of my effing business.
No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.
The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.
You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.
You believe them, but it does not make it true.
It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.
All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.
So, nil points.
It's really getting up your nose that there is not one scintilla of evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, isn't it? I wouldn't call not enough proof to even arrest someone (let alone charge them) "emotional rhetoric". I'd call it common decency in standing up for people against whom there is simply no evidence.
Let's try again.
The disappearance of Madeleine is listed by the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.
There is no evidence of abduction, and the results of the forensics are inconclusive.
As it stands the case will not be solved.
The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that.
Lastly, if my comments on the case had no effect on you, you wouldn't reply, and you won't change my views, unless you can prove abduction.
And as the Portuguese Prosecutor said, there were no indications of any crime committed by the McCanns. They were not guilty of criminal neglect and may be seen to be morally responsible for the consequences of their actions or inactions; but that depends on the moral stance and ethical beliefs of the mere individuals making statements about their culpability.
All that such statements such as your "The Mccanns were responsible for the care of three children, and they failed in that." mean is that some unidentified and unimportant poster on a site on the internet feels that his/her feelings have been aroused by the actions of people who they know of only through the press and forums. It has as much meaning as my feelings about a proposed marriage which I see as doomed- it really does not matter to anyone but me- it is really none of my effing business.
If it's none of your effing business, why do you comment on here ?
You can wax lyrical as long as you wish, it won't change my views.
As to responsibility of parents, I suggest you read up on that.
The Mccanns failed on that score.
No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.
The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.
You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.
You believe them, but it does not make it true.
It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.
All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.
No rachel and sadie, I have to prove nothing.
The mccanns have claimed abduction from the start, with no evidence.
You do not know if they gave true accounts of what happened that night.
You believe them, but it does not make it true.
It is now 6 years and not a sign of Madeleine.
All you two do, along with others of the same mind set, is come up with emotional rhetoric which doesn't hold any relevance to the real world as regards evidence of abduction.
Why do you pursue such an ill informed attitude towards evidence stephen? What evidence would you like me to place before you in relation to abduction?
Does the evidence that Madeleine was seen by many as being alive and well before 7pm yet gone from her bedroom at 10pm hold any relevance for you?
Does the fact that her parents put her to bed along with her two siblings before they departed for their evening meal at 8.30pm yet she had gone from the room at 10pm hold some significance in your black and white world?
Does the fully open shutter and window have some relevance for you stephen given they were closed when last checked by several individuals? Not the sort of thing a 4 year old child could have done is it?
What about the police search stephen? The land, sea and air searches? Who were they looking for stephen and at huge expense?
Why did the PJ alert the Spanish authorities to keep a look out for a missing child at the frontiers stephen?
Stephen....could I suggest something before you make your next post. Look up the meaning of the words "ABDUCTION" and "EVIDENCE" and then attempt to put them together in a positive form because frankly your claim that their is no evidence of an abduction is looking pretty silly.
Nil points!
The PJ found no evidence of an abduction, and it was the UK police who suggested they investigate the Mccanns as well, again standard practice in the UK.
However, abroad, unlike in some sections of this country, children dine with the parents, and are NOT left by themselves unprotected..
stephen[/quote]QuoteThe PJ found no evidence of an abduction, and it was the UK police who suggested they investigate the Mccanns as well, again standard practice in the UK.
No, but only cos they ignored Golden witness Jane, and they ignored Mrs Caroline Carpenter. For what reason? I wonder why?
stephenQuoteHowever, abroad, unlike in some sections of this country, children dine with the parents, and are NOT left by themselves unprotected..
In hot countries, Stephen, as I suspect you know, everyone has a siesta in the middle of the day to avoid the heat. In cooler countries that is not the case. A child that has had a siesta will be able to stay up later than one who has not.
simples...........
stephen[/quote]QuoteThe PJ found no evidence of an abduction, and it was the UK police who suggested they investigate the Mccanns as well, again standard practice in the UK.
No, but only cos they ignored Golden witness Jane, and they ignored Mrs Caroline Carpenter. For what reason? I wonder why?
stephenQuoteHowever, abroad, unlike in some sections of this country, children dine with the parents, and are NOT left by themselves unprotected..
In hot countries, Stephen, as I suspect you know, everyone has a siesta in the middle of the day to avoid the heat. In cooler countries that is not the case. A child that has had a siesta will be able to stay up later than one who has not.
simples...........
What the hell is the matter with you, Stephen? What's all this talk about uncorroberated statements? People make statements all over the world without peeps who were not there, nor knowing anything, challenging them all the time.
Can we be clear
Are you saying that Jane is a liar?
Are you saying that all the Brits are liars?
Remember she is not the accused, Seems you are treating her as that.
Why are you suspicious of her all the time?
A child was seen being carried by a man we call bundleman and she reported to the PJ what she saw. Simples
Remember "The Cutting Edge Video" Youtube? Just spare a moment and have a look at that.
Please note as I am a bit deaf, I might not have the exact words. Feel free to correct me.
I suggest you start at 10.59
@11.57 she says about herself, in a chiding manner
"Why the hell didn't you think?
Not even thought anyone go into an appartment and take a child out.
Probably the one person who could have actually stopped anything
What if, what if, what if ...."
At 12.30-12.40, she is weeping.
Are you unable to see how wrong you are?
Please dont change the subject Redblossom. I bumped for Stephen. I did it when he arrived
I will copy it again
For Stephen:
» Insert Quote
What the hell is the matter with you, Stephen? What's all this talk about uncorroberated statements? People make statements all over the world without peeps who were not there, nor knowing anything, challenging them all the time.
Can we be clear
Are you saying that Jane is a liar?
Are you saying that all the Brits are liars?
Remember she is not the accused, Seems you are treating her as that.
Why are you suspicious of her all the time?
A child was seen being carried by a man we call bundleman and she reported to the PJ what she saw. Simples
Remember "The Cutting Edge Video" Youtube? Just spare a moment and have a look at that.
Please note as I am a bit deaf, I might not have the exact words. Feel free to correct me.
I suggest you start at 10.59
@11.57 she says about herself, in a chiding manner
"Why the hell didn't you think?
Not even thought anyone go into an appartment and take a child out.
Probably the one person who could have actually stopped anything
What if, what if, what if ...."
At 12.30-12.40, she is weeping.
Are you unable to see how wrong you are?
Please dont change the subject Redblossom. I bumped for Stephen. I did it when he arrived
I will copy it again
For Stephen:
» Insert Quote
What the hell is the matter with you, Stephen? What's all this talk about uncorroberated statements? People make statements all over the world without peeps who were not there, nor knowing anything, challenging them all the time.
Can we be clear
Are you saying that Jane is a liar?
Are you saying that all the Brits are liars?
Remember she is not the accused, Seems you are treating her as that.
Why are you suspicious of her all the time?
A child was seen being carried by a man we call bundleman and she reported to the PJ what she saw. Simples
Remember "The Cutting Edge Video" Youtube? Just spare a moment and have a look at that.
Please note as I am a bit deaf, I might not have the exact words. Feel free to correct me.
I suggest you start at 10.59
@11.57 she says about herself, in a chiding manner
"Why the hell didn't you think?
Not even thought anyone go into an appartment and take a child out.
Probably the one person who could have actually stopped anything
What if, what if, what if ...."
At 12.30-12.40, she is weeping.
Are you unable to see how wrong you are?
Not in the slightest.
I don't believe the mccanns and associates version of events.
Provide the evidence to prove me wrong.
I didn't infer anything Redblossom. You are wrong
But I had gone to the trouble of bumping the post ... and it was annoyong that the subject was suddenly changed
OK Stephen I am hoping that you have seen the video at the relevant parts and can now answer the questions ... Purleaze!
Sadie, can you explain how the police ignored Mrs Carpenter, and when? Do you even know when this info was relayed to the PJ? Because in a related previous post IIRC you said had thry not ignored her Madeleone could haveen home within hours! And what you think they should have done about her saying she vaguely remembered someone calling Madeleine, and who you think that was and why?
There are least two reasons
1) Jane Tanner witnessed bundleman carrying ?Madeleine
2) Mrs Caroline Carpenter heard a man whispering /murmuring "Madeleine, Madeleine". She was in the vicinity of where bundleman walked to, and she was there at the correct sort of time
So two witnesses. These should not have been ignored.
Jane Tanner would have been treated as a GOLDEN WITNESS by almost any police Force in the World But Amaral rubbished ALL the British witnesses. Had he taken her sighting on board along with Mrs Carpenters audio witnessing, then there would have been a very different result.
Madeleine would probably have been home within hours.
Oh, touched a raw spot there did I, Redblossom? .... apologies
Sorry, but the basics should have been to interview everyone who was dining with the Mccanns asap.
Yep, everyone makes mistakes, I agree.
Still in his book ... didn't he say that by the day after, he had decided there was NO abduction. Pls corrct me if I am wrong.
Bit hasty, don't ya think? Perhaps because of that he gave up on the spot? Didn't bother to interview people?
That's me done for tonight. Nigh Night Redblossom. Will be off the forum for a while. See ya
Psst: Have given up on Stephen. Seems he cant answer the questions.
This witness statement that i found again yesterday, is not conclusive in any way, but does seem to add some weight to my theory of a watcher/ controller on the balcony opposite 5A, that fateful night. As suggested in the earlier posts on this thread.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
The following day we saw Kate McCann when she came to collect the twins from the creche at lunchtime, she was distraught and broke down sobbing.
We didn't have any other involvement with their group for the remainder of our holiday and flew home on the Saturday. On the day of our departure we had to move out of our apartment and Mark Warner gave us another to use during the day until we left.
It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road. You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point. I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking. I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings.
This was only a day and a half after Madeleine was taken and that balcony did not exactly have a beautiful sea view or anything !.
But this is the PUBLIC balcony, not the private one.
And there had been rain earlier in the week IIRC.
May be nothing, but it may be. Pity Amaral couldn't be bothered to check these places. But then he decided from day one that the "Mccanns DUNIT, didn't he? All he was interested in, it seems, was pinning it on them.
IMO
What did you expect him to do. Go around every area that had a view of the McCanns apartment picking up cigarette butts and other detritus ? To do what with ?
As a child had been abducted - and the apartment had probably been watched, then yes they should have checked places from where a person could have been watching 5A. They could have tried to find out whether the cigarette butts belonged to someone who was staying there and was in the habit of going to that spot for a smoke. If no-one had - then that would be worth logging as potential evidence. What's the difference between that and other door to door enquiries?
There is absolutely no specific evidence that the apartment was watched so shall we start from there and work our way forward ?
So wouldn't trying to find out whether there was any evidence be the logical thing to do - right at the beginning of the enquiry?
There is absolutely no specific evidence that the apartment was watched so shall we start from there and work our way forward ?as you well know, there is lots of evidence that 5A was being watched.
By picking up cigarette butts ? From where ? The street ? The car park ? The car park across the road ? And how are you going to know when they were deposited ?
as you well know, there is lots of evidence that 5A was being watched.
Any copper worthy of his money should have looked there ... and yes picked up the cigarette stubs for analyisis later, if thought necessary
Absolute nonsense. What next, fingerprinting the balconies from all the apartment that looks on to 5a just in case ? @)(++(*
In big cases Faithlilly we generally see the UK police doing fingertip searches, combing the area. It's a shame that the PT police didn't at least look into the fag but business further. It could have been nothing of course, but equally it could have yielded DNA that may have helped further.
Not in a case of abduction Rachel, a murder absolutely.
I would think definitely in a case where a child has disappeared? Again, the fag butts could have been nothing but IMO they should have been checked.
By picking up cigarette butts ? From where ? The street ? The car park ? The car park across the road ? And how are you going to know when they were deposited ?
Graham Mackenzie who found the cigarette butts on a balcony overlooking Apartment 5A was astute enough to wonder whether someone had stood there and watched 5A. As Sadie said - he/she couldn't have been admiring the view - as there wasn't one. Did someone stand there chain smoking and watching the movements in and out of 5A? If the police had decided to check out places from where 5A could be watched then maybe they would have found the cigarette butts and if they were unable to find the smoker in the apartments then at least they could have obtained a DNA sample from them.
I don't understand why you are so hostile to what seems a perfectly sensible line of enquiry.
There was absolutely nothing to tie those butts to Madeleine's disappearance and nothing to say anyone stood watching the McCanns apartment from that balcony.
The balcony was public therefore by standing on it for any length of time the alleged abductor would have risked being seen by people passing in the street or by a resident of the block passing him to go down the stairs.
The balcony was public therefore by standing on it for any length of time the alleged abductor would have risked being seen by people passing in the street or by a resident of the block passing him to go down the stairs.Since people stopped smoking inside of flats, it's frequent to see smokers on a balcony. The civilized ones leave the butts in some recipient with sand. The others throw them in the street..
Since people stopped smoking inside of flats, it's frequent to see smokers on a balcony. The civilized ones leave the butts in some recipient with sand. The others throw them in the street..Yep, but each apartment had a huge balcony with a wonderful sea view on its southern side. This balcony with the fags, was sort of part of the stairs up, as far as I can see and had less attractive views.
Graham Mackenzie who found the cigarette butts on a balcony overlooking Apartment 5A was astute enough to wonder whether someone had stood there and watched 5A. As Sadie said - he/she couldn't have been admiring the view - as there wasn't one. Did someone stand there chain smoking and watching the movements in and out of 5A? If the police had decided to check out places from where 5A could be watched then maybe they would have found the cigarette butts and if they were unable to find the smoker in the apartments then at least they could have obtained a DNA sample from them.
I don't understand why you are so hostile to what seems a perfectly sensible line of enquiry.
It is very curious to me too. The view from that fag-butt-balcony is not awful by any means, but directly in front looms the side of Ocean Club Apart 5A + other apartments above. OC is quite tall . Several stories high. So that is not a good outlook.
Looking to the north is OK but nothing special. For a watcher, there is a wonderful view of all the access routes from there. The road that bundleman walked along is clearly viewed at its easterly end, so any one coming towards 5A from the east would be immediately spotted. And from the shadows (the nearby lamp cast shadows) there is a view just as far as to 5A gate.. Taking a few steps into the light, the tapas restaurant and IIRC the Tapas reception could be seen, as in the photo underneath..
A brilliant look out place. Why didn't the PJ check that?
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzrearaptd.jpg)
As you can see the view to the south west is over OC gardens and tapas bar and outside restaurant. The balcony is set back, so the rest of the view is cut off by the corner of the . apartment wall. Now narrow view that it is, that isn't bad, but not as good as surely the view would be from the massive front balcony, which would also have seats and probably tables for a drink..
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzrearaptd.jpg)
Like the fag balcony, that view from the big balcony would also see over the OC gardens, but the whole of them ... and over much of PdL, with a panoramic view of the ocean, I would think.
Unfortunately we dont have a photo of that view, but we can get an idea from a much lower ground level vantage point
(http://i.imgur.com/ESVuvH5.png)
On the right is OC. To the left and behind the tall slim tree is the ?watchers and fag-balcony with the apartment beyond. The big balcony is out of view round the corner, but basically has a view in this direction but from a higher vantage point. There would be seats there too.
So why smoke lots of fags where:
1) The view is largely opressed by OC looming up
2) There are no seats
3) And it is just a "landing balcony" on stairways, open to anyone who is cheeky enough to go there?
When a flat occupant, using the big balcony, could have the luxury of a better view and the comfort of a seat and a cuppa tea or glass of wine?
Doesn't make sense to me, unless watching the comings to, and goings from 5A, was the main reason.
As I said before, a brilliant watchers place. Why didn't the PJ check it? And test the fag ends?
It is very curious to me too. The view from that fag-butt-balcony is not awful by any means, but directly in front looms the side of Ocean Club Apart 5A + other apartments above. OC is quite tall . Several stories high. So that is not a good outlook.
Looking to the north is OK but nothing special. For a watcher, there is a wonderful view of all the access routes from there. The road that bundleman walked along is clearly viewed at its easterly end, so any one coming towards 5A from the east would be immediately spotted. And from the shadows (the nearby lamp cast shadows) there is a view just as far as to 5A gate.. Taking a few steps into the light, the tapas restaurant and IIRC the Tapas reception could be seen, as in the photo underneath..
A brilliant look out place. Why didn't the PJ check that?
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzrearaptd.jpg)
As you can see the view to the south west is over OC gardens and tapas bar and outside restaurant. The balcony is set back, so the rest of the view is cut off by the corner of the . apartment wall. Now narrow view that it is, that isn't bad, but not as good as surely the view would be from the massive front balcony, which would also have seats and probably tables for a drink..
(http://i.imgur.com/4gcBkDZ.png)
Like the fag balcony, that view from the big balcony would also see over the OC gardens, but the whole of them ... and over much of PdL, with a panoramic view of the ocean, I would think.
Unfortunately we dont have a photo of that view, but we can get an idea from a much lower ground level vantage point
(http://i.imgur.com/ESVuvH5.png)
On the right is OC. To the left and behind the tall slim tree is the ?watchers and fag-balcony with the apartment beyond. The big balcony is out of view round the corner, but basically has a view in this direction but from a higher vantage point. There would be seats there too.
So why smoke lots of fags where:
1) The view is largely opressed by OC looming up
2) There are no seats
3) And it is just a "landing balcony" on stairways, open to anyone who is cheeky enough to go there?
When a flat occupant, using the big balcony, could have the luxury of a better view and the comfort of a seat and a cuppa tea or glass of wine?
Doesn't make sense to me, unless watching the comings to, and goings from 5A, was the main reason.
As I said before, a brilliant watchers place. Why didn't the PJ check it? And test the fag ends?
Or perhaps several smokers depositing their cigarette butts before they get to their apartments ?
And possibly not.
But the fact remains that the PJ were incompetent in not proving the matter one way or the other.
Surely you are not suggesting it is right that these policemen should have ignored such a potential lookout and the possibility that it could have been an abductor checking out things just because it might not have been?
No proper police force would have simply ignored this.
Proving what ?Incompetence, it seems
Proving what ?
Proving that the PJ were not serving Madeleine McCann well.
Proving that, at least in part, they were a hindrance to the search for this little child, rather than an aid.
Proving that they may in fact have missed a vital chance to identify the perpetrator of an abduction if that is what happened that night.
You misunderstood me. Let me put my question in context, you said :
'But the fact remains that the PJ were incompetent in not proving the matter one way or the other.'
So what were the PJ supposed to prove with some probably weeks old cigarette butts ?
They were supposed to prove whether there was any likelihood that the individual or individuals who had clearly spent time on that balcony overlooking Apartment 5A had any connection to the disappearance.
And how would that have been possible?Were the police told there was an abnormal amount of fags on the balcony? At the time? No they were not. It wasnt until at least Sept 07 the Brit police passed this info on. I think they may well have been swept away by then!
You make my point so well.
Are you suggesting that a competent police force would not have included the balcony of an apartment block staircase less than 20 metres from the site where a little child had disappeared in their initial inquiry, that a competent police force would not have considered that the apartment may have been watched in advance of such a disappearance and that a competent police force might not have seen fit to wander across to that balcony that overlooks the apartment so closely? It would appear that you are saying that.
Well I think that is quite ridiculous. Any competent police force would have checked out that balcony for themselves within hours of the disappearance. That this police force had to rely on a witness to mention the balcony at all is a sign of gross incompetence.
In your biased unprofessional opinion
Which seems to be more alert to the realities of proper police work than your biased unprofessional opinion.
Are you really suggesting for example that the UK police forces would not even consider the possibility of an abductor having been waiting in a sheltered area just 20 metres from an unexplained disappearance of a missing little child? Have you never seen the police in real life (or even on television news) conducting fingertip searches of such crime scenes for even tiny pieces of evidence?
Apparently you haven't. Well I suspect like me, most people have, and will fully understand when I say that it was utterly incompetent of the PJ not to have looked carefully at that secluded balcony which overlooked the McCann apartment just 20 metres away.
yes, you are right of course, hindsight is SUCH a wonderful thing
@)(++(*
I suppose Mrs Fenn should have been made a suspect from the off too, she could have watched the apartment, known their movements and sprung! Love u and leave you dear, had a bellyfull of your awful hostility for one day
Which seems to be more alert to the realities of proper police work than your biased unprofessional opinion.
Are you really suggesting for example that the UK police forces would not even consider the possibility of an abductor having been waiting in a sheltered area just 20 metres from an unexplained disappearance of a missing little child? Have you never seen the police in real life (or even on television news) conducting fingertip searches of such crime scenes for even tiny pieces of evidence?
Apparently you haven't. Well I suspect like me, most people have, and will fully understand when I say that it was utterly incompetent of the PJ not to have looked carefully at that secluded balcony which overlooked the McCann apartment just 20 metres away.
Cite please?
Why should I even bother to look?
You made the statement. You provide the answer.
Cite please.
What i find odd, is that, we have these armchair Colombo's slating the PJ's procedures as though they too are professional investigators, yet the real Uk investigators on the ground (Leicestershire Police) at the time of the investigation and the Yard in their review since have never, once, either directly or indirectly sought to trash the investigation.
You'd think that if the investigation was as poor as the supporters of the family make out then Leicestershire Police would have come out and voiced their concerns to the world.
Yet the only time they have commentated on the investigation in a court was to say that there was no evidence the McCann's were not involved.
Something doesn't stack up, does it? If it was that bad why would LP let the PJ get away with "fitting up" Uk nationals in the manner some posters would make us believe?
What i find odd, is that, we have these armchair Colombo's slating the PJ's procedures as though they too are professional investigators, yet the real Uk investigators on the ground (Leicestershire Police) at the time of the investigation and the Yard in their review since have never, once, either directly or indirectly sought to trash the investigation.
You'd think that if the investigation was as poor as the supporters of the family make out then Leicestershire Police would have come out and voiced their concerns to the world.
Yet the only time they have commentated on the investigation in a court was to say that there was no evidence the McCann's were not involved.
Something doesn't stack up, does it? If it was that bad why would LP let the PJ get away with "fitting up" Uk nationals in the manner some posters would make us believe?
You misunderstood me. Let me put my question in context, you said :
'But the fact remains that the PJ were incompetent in not proving the matter one way or the other.'
So what were the PJ supposed to prove with some probably weeks old cigarette butts ?
To prevent arguments.
Faithlilly made a counter claim to my claim that finger tip searches are carried out in missing person/potential abduction cases in the UK. She stated that they are not carried out in such cases.
She is in fact completely wrong. They are done in the case of missing people and potential abductions not just murders and attacks as she claims.
For example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55804/Police-widen-search-missing-schoolgirl.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tia-sharp-police-seal-off-grandmothers-1245667
http://metro.co.uk/2008/02/26/police-search-shannon-uncles-home-9879/
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/feb/26/childprotection.ukcrime1
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/317351/FEARS-FOR-MISSING-GEORGIA
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ben-thompson-hunt-specialist-police-2495218
And just for interest one example from the USA.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/search-for-missing-hiker-suspended
Strangely enough, we have Colombo's slating SY yard too.
SY are going down the abduction route. They say the McCann's and their friends are NOT suspects. Yet STILL people are saying there is no evidence of abduction and that the McCann's have something to hide.
Thank you gilet, I've no problem with being corrected.
So from your links we have cases where searches were carried out by the police who found a body, were expecting to find a body and two about the Shannon Matthews case where it was the mother 'what dun it '
Interesting.
What i find odd, is that, we have these armchair Colombo's slating the PJ's procedures as though they too are professional investigators, yet the real Uk investigators on the ground (Leicestershire Police) at the time of the investigation and the Yard in their review since have never, once, either directly or indirectly sought to trash the investigation.
You'd think that if the investigation was as poor as the supporters of the family make out then Leicestershire Police would have come out and voiced their concerns to the world.
Yet the only time they have commentated on the investigation in a court was to say that there was no evidence the McCann's were not involved.
Something doesn't stack up, does it? If it was that bad why would LP let the PJ get away with "fitting up" Uk nationals in the manner some posters would make us believe?
"Slating"? Who is slating them?
People have doubts about SY's current hypothesis because the Yard have produced no evidence, nor reasoning to support that hypothesis, and indeed in two and half years are unable to produce anything resembling a genuine abductor suspect.
So some are quite prepared to see what evidence they have before regarding a statement made two thirds of the way through a review and 1 month into a re-investigation as definitive and total.
Some are quite prepared to see when they have concluded their investigation (not just started it) what their hypothesis and supporting evidence is then.
Some, on the other hand, regard the SY statement, made one month into an investigation, that the parents arent suspects as definitive and final simply because they want to believe it as it fits in with their own beliefs.
Actually you are being extremely presumptious in pretending to know what reasons people may have for believing Scotland Yard detectives who make public statements live on television. Such presumption has no place in real debate. It merely confirms that you are unwilling to see two sides of a argument with an open mind.
And in my case you are completely wrong. That is not my reason. My reason is far more simple. Unlike others who have openly expressed a kind of paranoid distrust in all police, I retain trust because I am aware that most police officers (including a number of personal friends) do the job with a genuine commitment to justice.
I have already explained that there is no definitive statement from SY that the case is only two thirds the way through and only media reports to suggest this. Other media reports tell us otherwise. Your reliance on unconfirmed media reports when we know that the Grange team have (from the direct statements made) moved on from review to investigation of the leads which they have found is a little sad.
Seriously? I don't think so!
A police force charged with acting as Liaison with a foreign force actually dissing that foreign force no matter what the temptation? Not a chance, whether you think it should have happened or not. The reality is that such an action would sour relations permanently in a way which would be almost impossible to recover.
And just in case you hadn't noticed nobody has "fitted" anyone up. Are you not aware that the McCanns were not even charged with a crime? How can they have been "fitted" up? Why would LP or anyone else in the UK police or authorities jeopardise future relations when there was no crime for the McCanns to answer to? You have no way of knowing what the reaction of LP or other UK authorities might have been had such an event occurred have you?
You are simply burying your head in the sand and refusing to actually debate the failings which have been mentioned in the case and then looking for convoluted excuses to pretend that the PJ did a good job, excuses which actually don't hold water.
Links please gilet to reports that the SY review team have looked at ALL the information currently available to them and not simply two thirds ?
First of all I refer you to this post on the subject which I made previously and which you have clearly missed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2069.msg67804#msg67804
As for links, not a problem.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/20/scotland-yard-officers-returning-to-holiday-resort-where-madeleine-mccann-vanished-3891135/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/417282/Scotland-Yard-s-new-leads-bring-fresh-hope-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-father
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/07/05/Madeleine-McCann-could-still-be-alive-Scotland-Yard-says/7561373052092/
http://news.uk.msn.com/comment-and-analysis/dozen-british-suspects-as-new-maddie-probe-begins
Officers who are two-thirds of the way through completing their review have been to Portugal 16 times and shared their findings with the police and the judicial authorities as new information emerges. Prosecutors from London have also travelled to Portugal as part of negotiations to pave the way for the opening of the British investigation.
So far the team has gathered 30,500 documents. They are around two-thirds of the way through their review.
Operation Grange officers said the unique review process, which is only two-thirds complete, had already resulted in 3,800 leads.
His 37-strong police team is two-thirds of the way through examining 30,500 documents from files held by the Portuguese, private investigators and British police. Some fresh interviews have also taken place.
So far the team have gathered 30,500 documents. They are about two-thirds of the way through their review and have been to Portugal 16 times.
They are around two-thirds of the way through their review, and so far have been to Portugal 16 times.
Seriously? I don't think so!
Well you wouldn't would you? You're a supporter of the Mccann's. Nothing that contradicts or casts doubt on your beliefs is going to make you "think so", is it?
Again simple presumption on your part. And again you are completely wrong. I am not a supporter of anyone. If you care to read back over my posts you will see that I have often stated that there is as much potential evidence of a death of Madeleine (which, of course, would very possibly involve her parents in some way) as there is of abduction. Unlike some others I don't dismiss any potential evidence and unlike some others I do not claim there is proof of any particular action/event either.
I am simply a supporter of the truth and the truth is that we simply do not know what happened in Praia da Luz to Madeleine McCann.A police force charged with acting as Liaison with a foreign force actually dissing that foreign force no matter what the temptation? Not a chance, whether you think it should have happened or not. The reality is that such an action would sour relations permanently in a way which would be almost impossible to recover.
It has been said that the investigation was led by a corrupt officer, that it was riddled with massive and fundamental errors which concluded under both Amaral and Almeida, that the McCann's were responsible for staging an abduction and concealing a body.
If it was as flawed as you and others have made out, and that was the conclusion, then "souring relations" wouldn't have come into it. If it was that inept and corrupt and came to such serious conclusions against Uk nationals as a result, do you really think LP and the Foreign Office would have been bothered about souring relations?
Given LP's and to a lesser extent the Foreign Office's pivotal role in the investigation and the co-operation they would have been guilty by association and you would fundamentally expect they would both distance themselves from the PJ and register formally that these were not their conlusions and that they were concerend about the nature of the way the case was handled.
But that was not the conclusion. Have you not actually read the files? I replied earlier that there was no need for LP or any other UK authority to "sour relations" precisely because that was not the conclusion. There was no case against the McCanns, no evidence against the McCanns, no charges against the McCanns and no reason to sour relations. No-one knows whether LP or perhaps the Home Office would have stepped in if such charges had been made or if the case had concluded in that way. But as it didn't your point is rather redundant.And just in case you hadn't noticed nobody has "fitted" anyone up. Are you not aware that the McCanns were not even charged with a crime? How can they have been "fitted" up? Why would LP or anyone else in the UK police or authorities jeopardise future relations when there was no crime for the McCanns to answer to? You have no way of knowing what the reaction of LP or other UK authorities might have been had such an event occurred have you?
Oh do come off it, the condasencion and apparent flippancy in your post does you no favours. Just makes you look silly and angry.
The fit up allegation has come from the McCann's, their friends and their supporters as that was what the PJ were trying to do. There is not a shred of evidence to support that.
We do know that when they were made arguido's there was no condemnation either from LP or the foreign office.
That should tell you enough, given the seriousness of the allegations. Both appeared to have been comfortable and have not then or since ever condemend the PJ's actions or decisions.
There is no condescension (sic) in my post and most certainly no flippancy as you claim. Rather a reply to a poster who had introduced the idea of the McCanns having been fitted up. Your understanding of the situation and comments appears flawed. The fitting up may have been attempted but it failed. There were no charges.
You appear also to be wholly unaware that arguido is simply a loose analogy to "person of interest". Why would Scotland Yard, LP or anybody else object to a thorough investigation of the McCanns who would automatically in any disappearance of their own child be at least persons of interest? There is no reason for any objection as SY, LP or any other UK force would have questiioned them at least as thoroughly as the PJ did.
Such objections would only occur if the McCanns had subsequently been charged. Only then would the effort, and potentially serious action of objecting to the way the inquiry had been conducted become necessary.
The very fact it never became necessary means it never even needed to happen. Don't you see that?You are simply burying your head in the sand and refusing to actually debate the failings which have been mentioned in the case and then looking for convoluted excuses to pretend that the PJ did a good job, excuses which actually don't hold water.
No i think it is you who is burying your head in the sand. The evidence shows there was not a peep of concern or condemnation issued by either LP or the Foreign Office formally or informally to register their disgust about the investigation.
You are burying your head in the sand in trying desperately to suggest the investigation was a farce and a disaster, when in reality the UK police on the ground in Portugal and indeed SY have not once ever suggested directly or indirectly that it was.
Now you can try and convince yourslef you are right by thinking it was to save a dimplomatic incident but common sense says had the PJ pressed forward with charges it would have been a diplomatic incident anyway.
I repeat there is no evidence from LP, the Foreign office nor SY that the investigation was as bad as you and your fellow supporters attempt to make out.
We have the following from:
Guardian:
Herald Scotland:
Mirror:
BBC
Express:
Sky:
So as the Guardian made a correction at the request of Redwood regarding the "suspects" (to persons of interest) why would he not be seeking corrections to all these outlets saying it was only two thirds of the way through if it was complete?
Actually you are being extremely presumptious in pretending to know what reasons people may have for believing Scotland Yard detectives who make public statements live on television. Such presumption has no place in real debate. It merely confirms that you are unwilling to see two sides of a argument with an open mind.
And in my case you are completely wrong. That is not my reason. My reason is far more simple. Unlike others who have openly expressed a kind of paranoid distrust in all police, I retain trust because I am aware that most police officers (including a number of personal friends) do the job with a genuine commitment to justice.
I have already explained that there is no definitive statement from SY that the case is only two thirds the way through and only media reports to suggest this. Other media reports tell us otherwise. Your reliance on unconfirmed media reports when we know that the Grange team have (from the direct statements made) moved on from review to investigation of the leads which they have found is a little sad.
Only newspapers.
And no dates given
All from July 2013, check them.Cant be bothered.
Why are you being so incredibly pompous? Why can you not take part in discussions without this attempted air of superiority festering in your every post?
No i'm not being presumptious as that's basically the gist of it between the two camps.
I am not unwilling to see two sides of any argument. I am prepared to accept abduction when clear evidence demonstrates it.
I am also happy to take what has been said and use my brain to join the dots where necessary if there are any gaps.
Given we haven't got all the information readily available it's the only way one can draw conclusions in such cases.
Me too, glad we agree.
There was no statement on air as such, however there was i believe an off air question and answer section where it came out. Certainly given the sheer number of media sources that reported it (and all those links i posted were from July and related to the last press conference) to know, with confidence, that it was said.
Cant be bothered.
Only newspapers.
You have to wonder why posters give quotations and tell you to read them but deliberately leave out crucial details like the actual link which you know they possess.
What could the motive for such a deliberate action be I wonder?
Surely they are not playing a silly game and trying to wind up the person who they are challenging to read their evidence? That would be contrary to all good practice in debate.
Perhaps Albertini can explain why he chose not to offer links to the articles he was quoting from but demands that people should waste time finding them for themselves? What is his motive for that deliberate wasting of peoples' time?
Over the past two years the review, whilst not complete, has been in a unique position having drawn together material from the UK, Portugal and private investigators from seven different companies.
Oh do go forth and multiply.
How about direct from the Yard themselves:
http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Latest-update-on-Madeleine-McCann-case/1400018438045/1257246741786
I'm happy to accept your apologies and withdrawl of your spurious claims.
No mention of the two thirds completion at all I see. No indication whether the completion is imminent or not?
Had you not been so abusive I would have seriously considered apologising.
But after your disgusting abuse to me. Sorry, not a chance.
Why do people have to resort to abuse in that way I wonder. It reflects badly only on them.
You have to wonder why posters give quotations and tell you to read them but deliberately leave out crucial details like the actual link which you know they possess.
What could the motive for such a deliberate action be I wonder?
Surely they are not playing a silly game and trying to wind up the person who they are challenging to read their evidence? That would be contrary to all good practice in debate.
Perhaps Albertini can explain why he chose not to offer links to the articles he was quoting from but demands that people should waste time finding them for themselves? What is his motive for that deliberate wasting of peoples' time?
Really? From the person who said:
There was not one word in my post which was abusive.
What it does mention is that it isn't complete which was your position. And it is wrong. Whether it is nearly or not at all complete is irrelevant flannel.
You have demonstrated complete arrogance and pompus tone throughout our discussions culminating in the above quoted diatribe casting aspersions on me.
You reap what you sow.
Oh do go forth and multiply.
I quote:
If you do not find that abusive then I simply have to disagree with you. I am certaion others will understand just how abusive that comment is and just how badly it in fact reflects on you.
As I said I would have apologised but for that abuse on your part.
The Scotland Yard document does indicate that the review is incomplete and like the news media which reported that the review was complete I was mistaken in that regard.
But absolutely no apology will be forthcoming to a person who chooses to abuse me in that disgraceful way.
I quote:Would be highly surprising if SY investigation and review was absolutely complete, as they have a further 38 peeps to interview, twelve of them British Nationals. Maybe some have now been interviewed and that number has diminished?
If you do not find that abusive then I simply have to disagree with you. I am certaion others will understand just how abusive that comment is and just how badly it in fact reflects on you.
As I said I would have apologised but for that abuse on your part.
The Scotland Yard document does indicate that the review is incomplete and like the news media which reported that the review was complete I was mistaken in that regard.
But absolutely no apology will be forthcoming to a person who chooses to abuse me in that disgraceful way.
I quote:
If you do not find that abusive then I simply have to disagree with you. I am certaion others will understand just how abusive that comment is and just how badly it in fact reflects on you.
As I said I would have apologised but for that abuse on your part.
The Scotland Yard document does indicate that the review is incomplete and like the news media which reported that the review was complete I was mistaken in that regard.
But absolutely no apology will be forthcoming to a person who chooses to abuse me in that disgraceful way.
Gosh the indignation is astounding! When you directly or without a thin veil make accusations or cast aspersions against others, what do you expect? A muted swear expression out of exasperation is acceptable and far less abusive than what you do and most people CAN see thatYou have proved that you are happy abusing others, any time except when stopped by authority.
your constant pomposity, air of superiority, condescending posts, calling people stupid or silly, immoral, liars, commenting on their characters,vexatious attacks 24/7, and the rest, have a word with yourself!
Pot kettle black.
And as said, you reap what you sow.And you reaped it well today!
There is nothing pompous about gilet, just an amazing intellect that is sorting you all out. I have only seen one other poster to equal her.
If you cant take the heat then pls leave the kitchen
And you are WHO? With what qualifications to say anyone has an amazing intellect? Well guess what, I would take honest down to earth posters anyday than GILETs billous offerings intellect or not, an intellect which is abused unfortunatelyNothging abusive about gilet.
The point is faithfully, the PJ were investigating whether anyone has seen anything suspicious, weren't they?
Well someone pointed out the pile of cigarette butts that looked suspicious to him, because as he said the person who had been stood there smoking had a very good view over 5a and its surroundings.
So, why couldn't the PJ have taken a sample of the cigarette butts? Then if they had a suspect they could check the DNA.
Missed thisA balcony, just 12 metres away from 5A and completely overlooking the scene.
For the umpteenth time!! mcKenzie told the UK police in SEPTEMBER 07 about the ciggie butts, how on earth were the PJ to colledt and test them at the time if they did not EXIST when THEY were told months later
LOL
Well someone pointed out the pile of cigarette butts that looked suspicious to him, because as he said the person who had been stood there smoking had a very good view over 5a and its surroundings.
So, why couldn't the PJ have taken a sample of the cigarette butts? Then if they had a suspect they could check the DNA.
A good point Lace. I am unaware of any tests being carried out but I could be wrong?
For the umpteenth TIME
the witness DID NOT TELL ANYONE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 07 there were any BUTTS there, in May 07, LOL
I think the cleaners got in before HIM
For the umpteenth TIMEExcuse me, but they should have bludy well found them. So close at only 12 metres away and such an obvious vantage/ look out point. Neglectful policing.
the witness DID NOT TELL ANYONE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 07 there were any BUTTS there, in May 07, LOL
I think the cleaners got in before HIM
As I say it simply depends on which media sources (or none) that you choose to trust and believe. I have provided a whole range of links to media which make the claim that the inquiry had ended. I might add that the Telegraph has a different slant in that they proclaim that the review had been upgraded into an investigation of the potential persons of interest.
"You pays your money and you takes your pick". Personally I find it hard to believe that SY are now conducting both the investigation and a review at the same time. But that is just my take on the matter. There is evidence of both options but no proof either way.
Quote from: gilet on Today at 01:00:06 PM
As I say it simply depends on which media sources (or none) that you choose to trust and believe. I have provided a whole range of links to media which make the claim that the inquiry had ended. I might add that the Telegraph has a different slant in that they proclaim that the review had been upgraded into an investigation of the potential persons of interest.
"You pays your money and you takes your pick". Personally I find it hard to believe that SY are now conducting both the investigation and a review at the same time. But that is just my take on the matter. There is evidence of both options but no proof either way.My post from another thread :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10161774/Madeleine-McCann-David-Cameron-welcomes-new-Scotland-Yard-inquiry.html
What the hell has this got to do with anything that has been talked about Faith? Changing the subject are you ? Too close to the truth, was I ?
Faithlilly
As I said, before the interruption:
About the fag ends on the balcony featured in sadies theory .... and overlooking the side gate to 5A in Mackenzies statement.
This is :
A balcony, just 12 metres away from 5A and completely overlooking the scene.
A balcony with a part in shadow, so had dark patches.
A balcony that had a view of almost everything important from a watchers perspective
A balcony that was open to the public. It was quiet but anyone could go there.
Yet the PJ didn't even bother to look at it
There is not one scintilla of proof there was a watcher !
Deary me !
I seem to have touched a raw spot !
Sadies theory, whilst a plausible one, is just a theory
BUT those fag ends were on
a balcony overlooking 5A and
only 12 metres from the gate
The PJ should have looked carefully there.
Amaral of course, had decided within hours of the abduction that the Mccanns had dunit ... so no reason to look perhaps.
I feel sorry for the PJ officers in general; they worked so hard, but were looking for the wrong things per Amarals command
Not worried about your boredom threshold
Only worried about trying to find the truth
Luv ya faith @)(++(*
Not worried about your boredom threshold
Only worried about trying to find the truth
Luv ya faith
That's lovely sadie. I just pity you.
However, a couple of questions come to mind:
1. As far as the little balcony is concerned, why would the abductor / accomplice pick a vantage point with such an important blind spot?
2. A team of two (or more) people equates, or could equate, with a so-called 'professional' abduction. But what 'professional' would wet his pants, as you put it, if something went wrong? (You suggest that the person with the car panicked and fled the scene upon seeing Jerry /Jez). Wouldn't a 'professional' person keep cool and proceed to plan B? Why would a higher-up in any chain hire a pant-wetter, when there are plenty of hardened criminals available for work? (Can't find an icon here for a pant-wetter - maybe someone can design one...)
3. If this was plan A, what was plan B?
4. I just wanted to clarify - are you saying the man / woman with the car chickened out and never met up with the abductor after that? Or did they meet, somehow, at another point?
Hi Sherlock,
I like your name. Welcome to M of J Madeleine Section
It is good that my theory is being questioned and I will do my best to answer. It is only a theory and all theories must be tested.
Sherlock
By blind spot, I think you must mean that the watcher could not see the corner where Gerry and Jez chatted? And possibly could not see the reception and the tapas outdoor restaurant?
Before any of the party walked by, it didn't matter so much if he was seen having a fag on that balcony. He need not stand in the shadow. It was a cool gusty night, so it was unlikely Mrs Fenn was on her balcony and very few people passed by. Anyone coming to the Tapas area from the NE or the NW, he could easily see. Others coming from the South and the East /SEast were not a problem, cos they never got as far as 5A if they were going to the tapas, which was almost the only place anyone would be going to . Very very few other people were likely to pass by. PdL, even in June/july, when we visited, is a really quiet place.
From the extreme northwest corner of the balcony, he could see the Jez and Gerry corner and also even see the Tapas group eating. The corner of the flats that he was in was obscuring the actual reception area. So he had a VERY good sight of everything excepting the Reception. It is doubtful whether there was a better all round view from anywhee else ... and so convenient, virtually opposite 5A front door, with the getaway car parked immediately adjacent to the back garden gate of the flats where he was standing.
So long as he vanished into the shadows when anyone came
... there was no reason why a person might not have a fag on that balcony. Altho it would hardly be a flat owners/renters first choice if they had a big balcony of their own with seats.
So he had a superb view of everything, yet was in no real danger of being noticed.
My thought are that they were semi professional employed by a true professional who had previously been a lone operator. He had already accomplished 6 abductions and fluffed one. No it was not necessarily Gerry on his own that phased him out. It was Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abduction that did it, along with Gerry. imo.
Why risk his own neck? Let us remember that with the Carolina abduction, as soon as the man was spotted walking Carolina way, he loosed her hand and walked off around the corner.
Did i mention a Plan A and B? Cant remember where. Can you pls give me the post number to point me to it
Yep, that is what I am thinking, that he/she chickened out. I am wondering if they met up later maybe at the Staff Quarters, or maybe at the tiny beach, or ..... ?
These, I can only hazard unstructured guesses at .... but The Staff Quarters are very interesting to me.
The Smiths sighted ?bundleman only 50 - 80 metres, before The Staff Quarters and down the same road, Rua D'Escola. None of The Smiths could see The Staff Quarters at that point of their walk home. He had come from that direction
A soujourn there, getting moral support, grabbing a quick drink and maybe phoning around for instructions ...... or to alert a boat in Lagos (3+ miles) to come, would explain the long delay between JT's sighting and The Smiths sighting.
Phone calls about 9.20 - 10.00 pm could be very interesting
Hope this makes sense to you?
I want to re-iterate that this is only a theory, but seems to me that it ticks all the boxes.
Thanks for the welcome, Sadie, and the thorough response.
I see what you are saying about the balcony. It does have a very good general view of the area.QuoteRegarding the 'professional' aspect to the case, I just feel that a seasoned abductor / accomplice of any description would not have chickened out at the juncture they did. You make a good point about the Carolina case, but things are different here in that, if we are putting things together correctly, the abductor was firmly holding his prize when the second person, as you suggest, gave up on him. Stage one had been reached. An incredible achievement, coming as it did through much audacity, planning, and luck. Why give up now?
I am thinking that the man who planned all this was a seasoned abductor. That his series of abductions had been stopped up in the North, so he had to stop abducting (in PT at least) for 5 years. Then change his area and his choice of victims, altho seems he had history of young girls. i.e. Claudia Alexandre Silva e Sousa, aged 7, up in the Porto region. Again a blond.
The crew that executed the actual abduction may not have his experience, but seems they were a pretty slick outfit, if my theory is correct, of course.
That he arranged and organised it but from afar. That everything was compartmentalised, so that no-one knew anyone else, or the next stage, in the abduction. To prevent anyone finding out who he was.QuoteOf course, nerves may have got the better of him/ her. But what about the adrenaline, and the 'professionalism'?
The getaway driver didn't have the adrenalin running like bundleman and he didn't want to be caught by the PJ and go to jail. He saved his own skin.QuoteAnother thought about the chickening out is that if Jane Tanner and others had intervened at the time, as you suggest was wetpants' fear, and the abductor had been caught and questioned, the abductor's loyalty to wetpants would have gone out the window. How then would wetpants have been protecting himself by driving off?
He wouldn't have even thought that far ahead, Sherlock. Blind panic would have taken over. It is easy in hindsight to think of these things, but at that moment his only thought would have been to scarper as fast as he could, to save his own skin. IMOQuoteDriving off left the abductor in a much more vulnerable position, greatly increasing his chances of being apprehended and being forced to spill the beans. Again, not so smooth.
Hindsight is wonderfulQuoteFinally, I don't know if you actually did speak about a plan B. What I am getting at, is that a professional person would surely have had a contingency in the face of being disturbed during the abduction. The abductor (s) would have known, having monitored the apartment in advance, that even though the town as a whole was quiet, they were still liable to being disturbed, seen or heard at some point in the operation not only by the McCanns, but by the other 7 whose apartments were very close, plus neighbours and others as well. It seems mighty strange that the possibility of being seen did not appear to have been incorporated into the plan. It was a given that there were likely to be people in the street at some point, hence the absolute necessity for plan B, and the implausibility of a professional person not formulating one, ergo my question 'so where was it.' Whatever plan B was, presumably it can't have been a very sturdy one, because, according to your theory, wetpants pressed the panic button instead. No plan B, no professional.Maybe Plan B was for ?bundleman to make his way to the Staff Quarters and phone for instructions.
Personally with every direction covered visually and everything honed to a fine art, I am inclined to think they felt infallable. As soon as Gerry left, nobody else in sight, to go for it.
They knew it could be achieved in a minute or so, and pick up was around two corners, so no-one would connect a vehicle parked a short distance away with a pick up a couple of turns away out of sight.QuoteHaving said all that, Sadie, I do feel strongly that for the abductor to have been parading through the town to be witnessed by the Smiths (and possibly other people as well) at the very time the alarm was being raised, something must have gone badly wrong, hence my interest in your theory.
Elementary, if I may.
In reply to your previous post, I do want to remark that you seem to know a lot about what has been going on across Portugal. I am new on this case, and will have to brush up.
Regarding wetpants saving his skin, I agree that he wouldn't have had the same sense of urgency as
bundleman, certainly now that bundleman was holding the baby. As a matter of
interest, do you think their respective roles on the night were pre-designated
by the organizer?.
But now let's turn to bundleman himself. Did he handle things any better than
wetpants? In the absence of any certainties as to what he did in the time
immediately following the events of 9.15, let's fast-forward to the Smith
sighting. It is almost inconceivable that parading around the town with
Madeleine, circa the very time her disappearance was being discovered, could
have constituted anyone's plan.
It's one thing walking across a road (Rua Martins) to a
car park in order to avoid starting a car engine near 5A; quite another to head
for the nightspots (the social area near the church which bundleman appeared to
be walking towards when he passed Family Smith). Would a jewel thief run the
streets amok after a major heist, casting his treasures skyward?.
This carless soujourn cannot have been in anybody's plan A; nor was it, I contend, a plan B. Bundleman - a panicker? So were he and wetpants really such a great team?
I would not have employed this pair myself, but I do concede, Sadie, that in general terms, whomever was involved must have been smarter than they looked, because Madeleine went without trace. And we can't only blame PJ incompetence/corruption for that.
Thats the car park I mentioned, Sadie. Most obvious one to me, with the red car. The alley way comes onto the car park, but too risky, to use IMO!! It comes out almost opposite the Tapas bar.remember, DCI, they were not carrying Madeleine near that car park. The vehicle was just parked there ready to drive off and round the two corners to near the drive in to 5A car park, where the pick up was exp[ected to be. also it was after dark.
Sadie, it was abduction by professionals, but one of them leaves fag ends with his dna all over them?Professional planning but semi professional actual abduction imo, Lyall
Logical? >@@(*&)
Professional planning but semi professional actual abduction imo, Lyall
Have I ikmagined this or was it pointed out somewhere on the forum that the PJ didn't do DNA?
All IYO of course but besides how would the abductor know the PJ weren't world experts in DNA, he certainly wouldn't have the hindsight we do. Surely if the planning had been so professional the abductor employed to carry it out would have been too ? Leaving any evidence that links you to the crime doesn't sound very professional to me.Of course it is OMO faith. It is only a theory, but all the pieces fit .... and there are quite a numnber of these pieces now.
Of course it is OMO faith. It is only a theory, but all the pieces fit .... and there are quite a numnber of these pieces now.
I have never made out that it is definitely FACT, but it seems to be a jigsaw coming together rather nicely.
Everything I do, Faith, I hone and adjust according to new facts.
Like I did in the early stages if you remember, swopping Gerry and Jez to the other side of the road, when it became apparent that Gerry had remenbered the position of their chat incorrectly.
I am after the truth Faith. It's not about scoring points in a discussion, but about trying to work out exactly what happened 8((()*/
If you can find anything to add please tell me ?{)(**
You are trying to fit round pegs into square holes sadie, with the help of some rather biased speculation and just a smattering of wishful thinking.
Well thinking about it, faith, you are a bit of a round peg in a square hole, but with all your recent help, I was hopeful that you had changed your mind.
It was you that discovered that Gerry was on the opposite side of the road when talking to Jez, wasn't it?
That was soooo hepful. I am very grateful
cheers.
My pleasure sadie.I think you are being very hard there Faith.
All that work Gerry did, up to and including damaging the credibly of his own witness, and he couldn't even convince the diehard supporters like you that he crossed to talk to Jez @)(++(*
I think you are being very hard there Faith.
There was no reason, that I can see, for him to contrive anything about being across the road.
His mind was in such a disjointed state, in a whirl, after every thing so disasterous had happened. Put yourself in his place. I've been there (not as bad as Gerry and kates place, thank Gawd) and I know what it did to my mind. I couldn't remember anything properly for weeks / months fterwards. My mind was kind of fragmented and jerky.
Like Picassos Guernicia. Have you seen it? Overwhelmingly magnificent, sad and very thought provoking, but aqll jagged lines. Its in the Reina Sofia gallery in Madrid. Do go and see it if you can. Three lovely Art Galleries in Madrid.
A bit of understanding on your behalf would go down well, instead of all this case hardened stuff.
Of course it wasn't impossible. loads of room at that alleyway entrance. try looking at G Earth and measuring the distance yourself.
So why didn't Gerry simply admit that he was,indeed, probably wrong ? Why undermine the credibility of the only witness who may have seen the abduction ?
The reason, Gerry knew that it was impossible for him to be on the apartment side of the road and for Tanner to pass by without being seen. Gerry knew it and Rebelo knew it too, that's why he asked for a reconstruction and why, I assume, they encouraged their friends not to go.
Of course it wasn't impossible. loads of room at that alleyway entrance. try looking at G Earth and measuring the distance yourself.
Gerry is a leader and very sure that he is correct. At times he is not right, as i found out when i met him. However, he has been magnificent in the way that he has supported kate and his family thru this dreadful trauma ... and generally I cannot fault the way that he has spearheaded this campaign to try and find Madeleine. He has been ably helped in this by Kate and many others
But he was not at the alleyway entrance as both Tanner and Jez confirmed.
Question: SIGNALSIt's there in the theory Sherlock. You could try reading it again. 8(0(*
Hello again, Sadie,
Can you tell me how the different members of the group signal to each other during the operation?
It's there in the theory Sherlock. You could try reading it again. 8(0(*
Question: SIGNALS
Hello again, Sadie,
Can you tell me how the different members of the group signal to each other during the operation?
The watcher signalled to tannerman or his assistant by torch or cigarette lighter . Just a quick flicker on then off.
They were almost immediately across the steet from each other when tannerman (bundleman) was near the front door.
They could have been using phones, bluetooth ear pieces perhaps.Yep, they could have. But to escape detection by the police mapping mobiles, it would have been safer to flicker a light imo.
Yep, they could have. But to escape detection by the police mapping mobiles, it would have been safer to flicker a light imo.
Like lighting a cigarette. 8((()*/
The watcher signalled to tannerman or his assistant by torch or cigarette lighter . Just a quick flicker on then off.
They were almost immediately across the steet from each other when tannerman (bundleman) was near the front door.
ETA: . Well at about 45* to each other and about 15 -16 yards apart. They were elevated so could have signalled without anyone in the street seeing.
You think Tannerman was near the front door so who moved the bedroom door to half-open? The door moved before Gerry checked and saw Madeleine in bed asleep in the same sleeping position she was put to bed in i.e. she had not got up and moved the door. So who moved the bedroom door?
I think this is where it gets a bit Graham Greene'ish and 'the third man' comes into it
He is already in the apartment, you see, chlorofming the children expertly, having hidden there whilst Gerry did his check ... hence the open bedroom door ( that Gerry sought no explanation for )
Bundleman ... who is not the 'innocent father' Scotland Yard think he is ... , is 'the carrier' Jane Tanner saw
The man who was already in the apartment when Gerry checked, is 'the lifter' who passes a drugged Madeleine through the window to 'the carrier'
Meanwhile, 'the watcher' has left the balcony where he was signalling 'the carrier' to make his way to the getaway car
As he approaches the spot where he is meant to rendezvous with 'the lifter' and 'the carrier' though, he spots Jane and Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins in the street ... he didn't realise that Gerry and Jez were there all the time he was 'watching and signalling' you see, because they were standing in a 'blind-spot' by the pathway
So 'the watcher' was frightened off and never did make the planned rendezvous with 'the lifter' and 'the carrier'
I think I have that right, by sadie's imaginings
I watched The Great Escape again this Easter holiday and I'm reminded of it now ... 'the mole' , 'the scrounger', 'the forger' et al
8((()*/ The moving door always baffles them. How did it move 3 times >@@(*&)
Well, sadie has rejoined 'real life' briefly, so we'll have to guess
I suppose 'the lifter' first opened the bedroom door when he went into the childrens' bedroom to drug them
That's when Gerry comes in and spots that the door is open too far
'The lifter' successfully hides behind the bedroom door whilst Gerry makes his check in the room
Gerry goes out and 'the lifter' leaves his hiding place and goes about chloroforming the already sleeping children
Then he raises the shutters and opens the window in readiness for 'the carrier' ... who has been signalled by 'the watcher' that the coast is clear ( although he is mistaken because Gerry and Jez are still there standing in that 'blind-spot' in the street )
'The carrier' arrives, having been wrongly signalled by 'the watcher's' lighter, and 'the lifter' passes Madeleine through the window ... I might be wrong there though, because sometimes sadie says the window was only opened so 'the carrier' could offer encouragment to 'the lifter'
Anyway, at that point, 'the lifter' leaves the apartment by way of the front door, to which he has aquired a key ... and that explains the second time the bedroom door was opened ( gerry having pulled it back to being only slightly ajar on his check )
'The lifter' leaves the apartment ( never to be seen again ) whilst 'the carrier', having been abandoned by 'the watcher' , who had been scared off by the sight of Jane, Gerry, and Wilkins all being there in the street ( not much of a 'watcher' was he ? ) is left to make his way on foot with a drugged Madeleine in his arms
That's when Jane Tanner spots him ... because 'the carrier', you see, is much bolder than the car driving 'watcher', and he chooses to walk straight across the street without even peeping round the corner to see if the coast is clear
So back to the bedroom door you asked about
It was opened for a second time time when 'the lifter' exited the bedroom
And that's how Matthew Oldield found it when he checked at 9.30pm ... open wide enough for him to look into the room
He left it like that, and Kate found it the same way when she returned to the apartment at 10pm
I think that about sums up 'sadie's theory'
It goes on a bit after that ... 'the carrier' hiding with Madeleine in the staff quarters for over half an hour ( for some reason or another ) before emerging again at just about the time Madeleine was found missing to make his way towards the beach ( for some reason or another ) ... where he was spotted by the Smiths
From then on it goes deeper and deeper into the realms of fantasy and is just not worth repeating
@)(++(* Yes there's an easy explanation in my theory. A lot of firsts that day - kids routine change, first visual check by Gerry who was the last person to see her, Kate sleeping in spare bed, Madeleine asking why didn't you come last night when we were crying, Kate washing brown stain etc.
If an abduction, the abductor would have to have carried Madeleine, whether alive or dead, openingly in the same way and if it was, as suggested, someone local they would have run the awful risk of being recognised.It applies to abduction cases as well as occultation cases.
If an abduction, the abductor would have to have carried Madeleine, whether alive or dead, openingly in the same way and if it was, as suggested, someone local they would have run the awful risk of being recognised.
There is no point in 'opening your mind' sadie if your theory has nothing concrete to sustain it. Wishful thinking rather than hard facts does not a believable theory make !
A theory is not absolute Faith.
That is why it is called a theory, rather than a fact
But there are indicators that my theory or parts of it are quite likely correct. Does that trouble you?
A theory is not absolute Faith.
That is why it is called a theory, rather than a fact
But there are indicators that my theory or parts of it are quite likely correct. Does that trouble you?
That is the problem with it all, Sadie, as far as some are concerned the theory outlined in Dr Amarals book and documentary is writ in tablets of stone and cannot be contradicted.
They are stuck in a time warp and are incapable of assimilating and taking other facts and the statements from witnesses on the ground at the time which dont fit that theory into consideration to think things through for themselves.
Many questions remain for me with the Smith sighting based on the activities noted prior to and in the aftermath of Madeleines disappearance and I keep changing my mind about the actual value of it when and if other suggestions are made.
I agree with your thoughts on what may have happened on the night Madeleine vanished and if anything new presents no doubt we will be capable of thinking about that too.
I find it regrettable that those who cannot challenge your theories choose instead to personalise their criticism.
A theory is not absolute Faith.
That is why it is called a theory, rather than a fact
But there are indicators that my theory or parts of it are quite likely correct. Does that trouble you?
There is no point in 'opening your mind' sadie if your theory has nothing concrete to sustain it. Wishful thinking rather than hard facts does not a believable theory make !
That is the problem with it all, Sadie, as far as some are concerned the theory outlined in Dr Amarals book and documentary is writ in tablets of stone and cannot be contradicted.
They are stuck in a time warp and are incapable of assimilating and taking other facts and the statements from witnesses on the ground at the time which dont fit that theory into consideration to think things through for themselves.
Many questions remain for me with the Smith sighting based on the activities noted prior to and in the aftermath of Madeleines disappearance and I keep changing my mind about the actual value of it when and if other suggestions are made.
I agree with your thoughts on what may have happened on the night Madeleine vanished and if anything new presents no doubt we will be capable of thinking about that too.
I find it regrettable that those who cannot challenge your theories choose instead to personalise their criticism.
Theories have to be based on evidence not plucked out of thin air. There's no evidence of a getaway car. Who would seriously park a getaway car opposite the entrance (and secondary reception) to where they were? Absolutely nobody that's who! Parking outside 5A on the road they walked to regular check is very risky. If you're talking about a watcher then he had to be at the tapas bar to see exactly when they were leaving the table to have any real chance of informing others of their movements. Very unlikely due to time constraint and being seen acting suspiciously by other tapas bar witnesses.
I guess that would all depend upon what time of day this van was normally seen in the vicinity
I think you will find that the balcony is in the stair well, and with access to anyone.I find it strange that they would bother to build a stairwell with balconies. Was this concept ever proven true?
....How do you think the abductors would get a key? Are you thinking in terms of ex-Ocean Club staff?
snip ....
The abductor had been skulking in/near the recess to the front door, which was in near blackness . As the abductor almost certainly had a key, once he got the signal, he was in and out like a shot, only stopping to open the window and blinds.
....SNIP/- ,.....
Thank you for presenting your ideas on where the alleged abductor went to Sadie.Has anyone thought it possible that the person in the Tanner sighting actually entered the car park to the North of Block 6? For Jane doesn't say she saw him still walking along the path when she go to the top of the road.
In order that everyone can see your theory at a glance I have produced a new plan. I haven't personally visited Praia de Luz yet so am restricted by the limitations presented by Google Maps and the photos taken by the Google van.
I am assuming that the abductor could have gone through the hedge by the two satellite dishes.
(http://i.imgur.com/yclf37E.jpg)
Scent from shoes? Whose shoes?If Madeleine wandered she would have been in bare feet on stones hence leaving a trail that can be followed even days later.
Why do you pursue such an ill informed attitude towards evidence stephen? What evidence would you like me to place before you in relation to abduction?Great post. Did Stephen do this?
Does the evidence that Madeleine was seen by many as being alive and well before 7pm yet gone from her bedroom at 10pm hold any relevance for you?
Does the fact that her parents put her to bed along with her two siblings before they departed for their evening meal at 8.30pm yet she had gone from the room at 10pm hold some significance in your black and white world?
Does the fully open shutter and window have some relevance for you stephen given they were closed when last checked by several individuals? Not the sort of thing a 4 year old child could have done is it?
What about the police search stephen? The land, sea and air searches? Who were they looking for stephen and at huge expense?
Why did the PJ alert the Spanish authorities to keep a look out for a missing child at the frontiers stephen?
Stephen....could I suggest something before you make your next post. Look up the meaning of the words "ABDUCTION" and "EVIDENCE" and then attempt to put them together in a positive form because frankly your claim that their is no evidence of an abduction is looking pretty silly.
Nil points!
.... snip ....In anyone's understanding what is reported by Caroline Carpenter happened before 10:00 PM. IMO it would be highly significant if someone who knew Madeleine by name was calling her prior to Kate's alarm.
Sadie, can you explain how the police ignored Mrs Carpenter, and when? Do you even know when this info was relayed to the PJ? Because in a related previous post IIRC you said had thry not ignored her Madeleone could haveen home within hours! And what you think they should have done about her saying she vaguely remembered someone calling Madeleine, and who you think that was and why?
... snip ...What I notice about Stephen Carpenter's rogatory is that it appears to be referring to a previous statement
You are correct in the fact that Stephen Carpenters statement was not taken for months afterwards; almost a year. I missed the date of the statement.
... snip ...
I agree, the balconies immediately opposite 5a have a great view of the apartment but we must remember that in May 2007 the car park to the front of 5a was surrounded by tall mature trees.Yep, they were surrounded by tall mature trees
By the way, I moved your post to your own theory thread.
I find it strange that they would bother to build a stairwell with balconies. Was this concept ever proven true?They had to have stairs to reach the different floors, Rob. In hot countries they sometimes have exterior staircases and walkways. The balconies were a luxury addition imo, they enhanced the architecture and were a pleasant amenity to have.
How do you think the abductors would get a key? Are you thinking in terms of ex-Ocean Club staff?I am thinking in terms of OC Staff in collaberation, ex-Ocean Club staff, careless keeping of the keys, even possibly previous people who stayed in that flat. Maybe taking a copy and casting their own. Easy to do.
Has anyone thought it possible that the person in the Tanner sighting actually entered the car park to the North of Block 6? For Jane doesn't say she saw him still walking along the path when she go to the top of the road.In my theory, Rob, Tannerman didn't intend to walk on the public roads at all.
Thank you for presenting your ideas on where the alleged abductor went to Sadie.
In order that everyone can see your theory at a glance I have produced a new plan. I haven't personally visited Praia de Luz yet so am restricted by the limitations presented by Google Maps and the photos taken by the Google van.
I am assuming that the abductor could have gone through the hedge by the two satellite dishes.
(http://i.imgur.com/yclf37E.jpg)
Great post. Did Stephen do this?Did Angelo write that? I never saw it ...so unlike Angelo ... i must have been sleeping!
I find it strange that they would bother to build a stairwell with balconies. Was this concept ever proven true?
They had to have stairs to reach the different floors, Rob. In hot countries they sometimes have exterior staircases and walkways. The balconies were a luxury addition imo, they enhanced the architecture and were a pleasant amenity to have.Did you climb that staircase? Did you look from the balcony?
I am thinking in terms of OC Staff in collaberation, ex-Ocean Club staff, careless keeping of the keys, even possibly previous people who stayed in that flat. Maybe taking a copy and casting their own. Easy to do.I understand you are thinking partly in terms of a planned abduction of a specific person, so if they used a key they would need to have the right key to a specific apartment. That takes a bit of pre-planning.
There such things as Master Keys too, aren't there?
Leaving the window open might have been a ploy to take the searchers eye off the fact that the front door was used. Using a key to the front door, immediately would throw suspicion on OC staff, wouldn't it?
So, if the perp/s were presently, or had worked for OC, best to keep suspicion off OC staff ... dont you think?
Did you climb that staircase? Did you look from the balcony?No
I understand you are thinking partly in terms of a planned abduction of a specific person, so if they used a key they would need to have the right key to a specific apartment. That takes a bit of pre-planning.I believe that Madeleine was carefully selected and that the whole abduction if it happened was pre planned in the greatest detail.
NoI didn't get most of that but why do you think these balconies are not part of someone's apartment. Like they all seem to have balconies attached to their apartments, would they just build balconies off stairwells?
But I am very capable of reading G Earth and reading photographs and both the areas in front of the front door recess and immediately in front of Madeleines window were clearly visible via a decent gap in the foliage as seen on several photos on here. The watcher couldn't see the actual door and neither could he see the actual window, but he could see the areas immediately in front of these.
It would have been simplicity itself for him to signal a man standing right by either of those places. And of course it would have been simplicity itself for a man outside those places to signal back
The same is true of the patio door. The watcher could have seen anyone going up the steps and across the patio to the patio doors .... and the reverse is true too.
From at least one of those balconies (maybe both upper ones) a watcher could actually see right into Apartment 5A. He could see anyone in the lounge and see where they were heading to. There was a light left on. If Gerry left the bathroom door open, then he could probably see him in there too
I didn't get most of that but why do you think these balconies are not part of someone's apartment. Like they all seem to have balconies attached to their apartments, would they just build balconies off stairwells?It is difficult to explain Rob .... and I am not good at explanations
It is difficult to explain Rob .... and I am not good at explanationsSince he says public balcony I accept your case on this issue. Thanks.
In order to understand it you need to be using G Earth, both as is and street scene and be referring to photos shown on here a couple of months or so ago
These three balconies were built straight off the stair wells. They were attached to no-ones specific apartment and a cheeky person could easily have snuck up there (for a fag and a watch?).
Mckenzie reported a suspicious pile of fag ends on the one pertinent balcony, but seems nothing was investigated from his report. He calls the balconies "public" balconies, altho i doubt that the general public normally used them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
-snip-
On the day of our departure we had to move out of our apartment and Mark Warner gave us another to use during the day until we left.
It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road. You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point. I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking. I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings.
It was when I heard that the police were trying to pinpoint telephone conversations made in the resort that I decided to get in touch about what
I had heard. Signed
View of balcony through trees from 5A car park 4/5/07
I believe that Madeleine was carefully selected and that the whole abduction if it happened was pre planned in the greatest detail.
1) It is said (is it fact or rumour?) that one of the maintenance staff 'lost' a complete bunch of apartment keys and kept it quiet. Were these keys lost, borrowed or stolen by him or someone else from him?
2) Having stayed in many establishments in Europe i can say in total honesty that on a number of occasions had i been brazen enough, I could have popped behind an empty counter and helped myself to a key ... but it would have been risky.
3) One of the three OG suspects, whose name I forget, was an OC employee. Am I right in thinking that he had a record or have I got that wrong? Please correct me if I have.
4) There are other possibilities for getting hold of the key too
Please remember that in previuos weeks, several OC apartments had been broken into with no obvious means of entering. Were they entered using a key too?
[ restored edited ]
In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciαria and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation.
In response to point 3,lets not forget what Rowley had to say back in April."In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciαria and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation."
So that's a non starter.
View of balcony through trees from 5A car park 4/5/07
That picture was taken through the vehicular entrance to the car park adjacent to Rua Dr Augostinho da Silva and not from one of the balconies of block 6. Notice the same leaning tree to the right of the entrance.Yep but at the time that Madeleine vanished the car park had quite big trees around it. It wasn't bare like your picture shows. It was something like how mistys image shows, with a gap thru that could have been used for ?torch / ?lighter signalling.
(https://i.imgur.com/8zOdIV4.jpg)
Got any evidence of a getaway car yet Sadie?
In response to point 3,lets not forget what Rowley had to say back in April.I know what Rowley said
So that's a non starter.
Always remembering Sadie that when you visited Block 5, the trees surrounding the car park adjacent to 5a had been removed. Back in 2007 you couldn't see the car park for the trees.
The unlit north side of the Ocean Club Garden apartments as they were in 2007 at the time of Madeleine's disappearance with trees almost obscuring the car park.
(http://i.imgur.com/rhS4EL7.jpg?1)
Below, the same view now with the trees removed and a floodlight fitted on the wall of the apartments between the first and second floors. Quite a difference!
(http://i.imgur.com/qfUAzw9.jpg?1)
"In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciαria and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation."
You could imagine they are still suspects in the case.
The pointers are thatRedwood 2013,remember him his word is his bond when saying the McCanns are not suspects.
1) a man was walking around PdL carrying a little girl whose clothes are similar to Madeleines.
2) No man would be foolish enough to steal a child then parade her through the streets. The vehicle he intended to use did not turn up, it seems and he was left "holding the baby", so walking.
2)_ The direction that the man, we call Tannerman and little girl, was walking FROM did not have any nurseries or creches for little ones to be carried home from ... so where was he coming from?
3) The manner in which Tannerman carried her, lieing down spread over both arms, would have been exhausting for much further. He hadn't carried her far. From 5A ?
4) The little girl was positioned in his arms as if taken from her bed, but because her head was on Tannermans left arm, she must have been passed to him by his accomplice, the lifter.
5) The little one had nothing on her feet and nothing warm around her. No Dad would be so uncaring as to carry his daughter around like that, on a cool blustery night. it was obviously intended that a getaway vehicle would come and pick up immediately
6) Despite continued requests and the urgency of the situation, no Tannerman came forward at the time. Surely a father who knew it might have been he who was thought to be Tannerman would have come forward at the time. Aman with a daughter of his own would surely have profound feelings for Madeleines position? ... and surely Amaral could not have ignored him?
We have every reason to believe that Jane saw the abductor .... so where was his pick up vehicle? No abductor of, imo, an obviously pre planned abduction would have contemplated walking her through the streets in full view.
That was an accident caused by Jane and Gerrry being in the wrong places at the wrong time as mentioned in previuos posts . The getaway vehicle was aborted.
The above are my thoughts that point to an abductor and the expected use of a getaway vehicle.
Through my major research and main theory based upon it and FACTS, I have reason to think that Madeleine was almost certainly alive in 2012. This main theory is in the hands of SY who may, or may not, be using it atm, but I am hopeful they are. Nothing so far to make me think that they are not.
All IMHO as a likely scenario ... but it aint cast in stone like you seem to think your theory is.
He said: In fact I would say that it was a revelation moment we are almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor and very importantly, what it says is that from 9.15pm we are able to allow the clock to move forward and in doing so things that have not been quite as significant, or have received quite the same degree of attention are now at the centre of our focus.
Redwood 2013,remember him his word is his bond when saying the McCanns are not suspects.
Tannerman is almost certainly not the abductor! period.
Just as one could the McCanns if using that logic.Can you prove that?
The four are no longer subject to further investigation,loud and clear,so despite a theory wanting some one on the inside to provide keys,look outs etc,it ain't one of those four.
Redwood 2013,remember him his word is his bond when saying the McCanns are not suspects.
Tannerman is almost certainly not the abductor! period.
Can you prove that?
Or is it "in YOUR opinion only?"
The team has looked at in excess of 600 individuals who were identified as being potentially significant to the disappearance. In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciαria and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation.
Can you ptove this, or is it just in your opinion?
He said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.
RedwoodQuoteHe said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.
And in doing so, DCI Redwood destroyed the only real link to an abductor. It's a real pity that the PJ didn't take a statement from this fellow and then we could all have read it.
Not necessarily. There are 4 elements to kidnapping/abduction.
(1) the taking or carrying away of one person by another;
(2) by force or fraud;
(3) without the consent of the person so taken or carried away;
(4) without lawful excuse.
The man Jane saw may well have been an accessory to the crime & guilty of only (1), and another party guilty of 2,3 & 4.
The act of false imprisonment may have been carried out by another person entirely.
Five years the man Jane saw was 100% copper bottomed Mr Abductor.
We now appear to be rewriting things a little to shoehorn Mr Crecheman into the frame.
Are you suggesting that the nice DCI Andy was keeping things from Crimewatch or that he was incompetent?
Five years the man Jane saw was 100% copper bottomed Mr Abductor.
We now appear to be rewriting things a little to shoehorn Mr Crecheman into the frame.
Are you suggesting that the nice DCI Andy was keeping things from Crimewatch or that he was incompetent?
I think the whole issue of what happened to Madeleine on the 3rd of May has been on the one hand so ludicrously exaggerated as to be beyond reason; while at the same time has been simplified in a way which defies logic.
The merit of Sadie's theory of what might have been the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's disappearance lies in the fact that nothing she has suggested is beyond the realms of possibility and much is backed-up with anecdotal evidence, some of which appears in the files.
The balcony in block six overlooking the McCann apartment where the cigarette ends were found, could have been used for surveillance.
Any one of the men seen showing enough interest in the apartment to attract the attention of passersby might have had an involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
Neither has Jane Tanner's eye witness testimony been entirely ruled out of the equation ... "almost certainly" is in my opinion too substantial a caveat to enable that.
I think the whole issue of what happened to Madeleine on the 3rd of May has been on the one hand so ludicrously exaggerated as to be beyond reason; while at the same time has been simplified in a way which defies logic.
The merit of Sadie's theory of what might have been the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's disappearance lies in the fact that nothing she has suggested is beyond the realms of possibility and much is backed-up with anecdotal evidence, some of which appears in the files.
The balcony in block six overlooking the McCann apartment where the cigarette ends were found, could have been used for surveillance.
Any one of the men seen showing enough interest in the apartment to attract the attention of passersby might have had an involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
Neither has Jane Tanner's eye witness testimony been entirely ruled out of the equation ... "almost certainly" is in my opinion too substantial a caveat to enable that.
There you have the advantage, supporters are able to string together possible events concerning unknown people into a consistent if unsubstantiated story without libelling anyone. Anyone who is doubtful about the statements or the truthfulness of the main players cannot do likewise due to fact that the main players are known.
In my opinion Sadie's theory is firmly rooted in fact as confirmed by witness statements which can be read in the files. More careful reading of my post will enable you to ascertain that the parts I have borrowed from it reflect witness statements which name unknown persons in what is anything but " a consistent if unsubstantiated story".
The substantiation being that Madeleine McCann vanished on the third of May 2007 and someone somewhere may very well know exactly how that event was arrived at.
You make an oblique reference to another discredited theory in which the "main players", who I take you mean to be Madeleine's parents, have been libelled.
Your fears are unfounded on that score as I really don't see how there can be the slightest comparison with that and Sadie's theory which in the first instance libels no-one and in the second instance comes well within the bounds of possibility.
In my opinion Sadie's theory is firmly rooted in fact as confirmed by witness statements which can be read in the files. More careful reading of my post will enable you to ascertain that the parts I have borrowed from it reflect witness statements which name unknown persons in what is anything but " a consistent if unsubstantiated story".
The substantiation being that Madeleine McCann vanished on the third of May 2007 and someone somewhere may very well know exactly how that event was arrived at.
You make an oblique reference to another discredited theory in which the "main players", who I take you mean to be Madeleine's parents, have been libelled.
Your fears are unfounded on that score as I really don't see how there can be the slightest comparison with that and Sadie's theory which in the first instance libels no-one and in the second instance comes well within the bounds of possibility.
Other theories which come well within the bounds of possibility cant be put forward.
The forum does not allow libellous posts. You may think other theories are well within the bounds of possibilities bits that's your opinion...not fact
They have as much grounding in fact as Sadies.
They have as much grounding in fact as Sadies.
That may be your opinion. It certainly is not mine.
In Sadie's theory there may have been an observer watching from a balcony opposite; a witness saw what might have been trace evidence from that position which might have been tremendously useful in a prosecution case, had it been collected and analysed.
Despite the witness realising the implication and indicating its presence to the police, it was subsequently discarded.
Therefore there was evidence that Sadie's proposed vantage point had been in use by a person or persons who may have spent some time there either innocently or for nefarious purposes. Hard evidence.
Some other theories don't come near even to that small scrap of what, handled appropriately, might have been another piece of information to build a picture of what might have happened to Madeleine rather than only being corroboration for Sadie's theory.
Sadie's theory reflects on how access might have been gained to the McCann apartment. Robberies had taken place in other holiday accommodation in the resort without obvious signs of forced entry:
The woman said: "It was in the same block as the one where the little girl was taken from.
"The police were called that night. They told us that someone with a key had got into the flat. Theres no proof of that, but that was their opinion as there was nothing else disturbed. No broken windows, no forced entry."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id331.htm
Making yet another detail of Sadie's theory which checks out and could also have been a possibility.
There certainly appeared at one time to be quite a bit of denial about the spate of burglaries endemic in Portugal and reports of British children being assaulted in their beds by an intruder were routinely rubbished; some of us know better now.
Has anyone proved a link between Madeleine and these incidents?
IMO access via a key is entirely plausible, although it is one of a small number of plausible theories.
In this scenario the window may be a distraction; perhaps opening the window/shutters was intended to draw attention away from the use of a key to gain access, or to give the impression that Madeleine had climbed out the window and wandered off, in order to buy time/confuse.
But I believe, from the evidence in the files, that it is "almost certain" (to use SY terminology) that MBM disappeared from the apartment after the MO check around 9:30 (providing parental involvement is ruled out).
This would only require minor modifications to Sadie's theory, in that JT could have potentially seen an abductor when she went change places with ROB after her main meal.
It is a pity the statement from Crecheman is not available, which may help refine what JT may or may not have seen.
All IMO.
I assume you are not using that video as evidence of the assaults?
I have never been totally convinced by DCI Redwood's eureka moment on that one.
Why? if Redwood was not being genuine in what he said why say it at all especially on the Crimewatch programme.I think he was genuinely wanting the focus to go on to the Smith sighting.
I am using that video as evidence that there is a sensitivity among some individuals regarding burglary in Portugal, in this instance the local newshound expressing ignorance of what occurred in his own back yard.
The clip meets the requirement of countering the already criticised medium of the press with a live interview thus enabling members to view and judge for themselves using a tried and tested formula sometimes called 'free speech'.
I am using that video as evidence that there is a sensitivity among some individuals regarding burglary in Portugal, in this instance the local newshound expressing ignorance of what occurred in his own back yard.
The clip meets the requirement of countering the already criticised medium of the press with a live interview thus enabling members to view and judge for themselves using a tried and tested formula sometimes called 'free speech'.
Why? if Redwood was not being genuine in what he said why say it at all especially on the Crimewatch programme.
I was only asking as it wasnt clear from the video which didnt support the rest of your post.
Snipped
The team has looked at in excess of 600 individuals who were identified as being potentially significant to the disappearance. In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciαria and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation.
I believe DCI Redwood was as genuine as circumstances allowed.
If you really think a senior detective is going to broadcast to the world all the minutiae of a very active case ... as well as to any perpetrator who might be interested in knowing where the case against him/her might be ... I certainly don't.
The public were given enough information to enable them to assist the investigation into Madeleine McCann's case.
It seems that even the simplest part of Sadie's theory of how an intruder may have gained access to apartment five is in contention. In my opinion a counter argument is not deflect attention from the pertinent points of Sadie's theory but in addressing the nitty gritty of it.
If there is no counter argument to its substance in my opinion the validity of many aspects of Sadie's theory is emphasised.
Redwood moved it on from Tannerman/crecheman to Smithman this is where it lies as of now,Sadies theory has Tanerman/ crecheman involved,those that matter the MET and I dare say the PJ do not.
Sadie's theory is comprehensive and covers a great deal of ground. She has made it plain it is a theory and will be open to discussion and refinement.
Why should you not mention the PJ? Sadie's theory recognises the expertise and excellence they have brought to this stage of Madeleine's case. If you have an opinion on that there is no doubt that expressing it would be most welcome. In my opinion one of the things this forum enjoys par excellence is an openness to allow all opinions (non libellous etc) to be heard with respect and without fear or favour.
Sadie's theory involves the suggestion that there was considerable forward planning involved in arranging for Madeleine's disappearance.
There may be even more links to the instances she has listed than she or any of us were particularly aware of until fairly recently and the question arises as to why police attention focused where it did when they were aware of so many other local criminal events and other anomalies.
Mystery burglary report could be new clue to disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Claims that raid call led to police officers being distracted during first hour of disappearance
A mystery phone call reporting a burglary moments after Madeleine McCann went missing is being hailed as a vital new clue to her disappearance.
In the minutes after she was abducted a decade ago, Portugese cops were reportedly diverted to a burglary nine miles from the Praia da Luz resort where the McCann family were holidaying.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/mystery-burglary-report-could-new-12933485
Co-incidence? Could have been.
An indication of collusion such as that detailed in Sadie's theory? Could have been.
But in my opinion a circumstance well worth bearing in mind when discussing Sadie's theory on there being the possibility of a plan in place to take Madeleine; all feasible and most of which is documented and requiring no outlandishly impossible invention.
In my opinion an example of a workable theory.
The inventions of the British press are the problem in my opinion,. Shining in Luz addresses the Odiαxere incident;" the GNR Lagos responded to the Securitas call at 10.30, and headed instead to an incident in Odiαxere, a fair distance from Luz."
" the GNR Lagos responded to the Securitas call at 10.30, and headed instead to an incident in Odiαxere, a fair distance from Luz."
No mystery about who called and when. It clearly wasn't 'moments' after Madeleine was reported missing and as SIL notes, the GNR would have responded to the OC first had Matthew been more forceful.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/madeleine-v-the-call-that-wasnt/
" the GNR Lagos responded to the Securitas call at 10.30, and headed instead to an incident in Odiαxere, a fair distance from Luz."
The first the phone call on record was at 10:41 so how can they say "instead"?
I don't think newspaper stories can be seen as 'evidence'. Most of what they reported was untrue gossip imo. There's nothing in the official files from this 'Scottish woman';
A second holidaymaker told police an intruder used a key to enter her Ocean Club apartment just three weeks before Madeleine went missing. Express 18th August.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id331.htm
Which police did she tell therefore, the British? How did the Express find her, were the British police 'leaking'?
It's probably as inaccurate as this statement about the man Carol Tranmer saw;
She told the officer the man matched the description of a suspect seen by Jane Tanner one of the McCanns' holiday friends. Express 18th August.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id331.htm
It sounds good, but it's not true.
I'd agree that many of the press reports at the time need to be taken with quite a bit of salt.
Sometimes, however, there can be a grain of garbled truth.
She says that as far as she can remember, during the years that she has worked at the resort, she knows of some thefts from inside the apartments and most recently on 16th April 2007 there was a theft from an apartment in Block 5 L, from where a plasma display screen, credit cards and a mobile phone belonging to the respective guests were taken.
As far as she knows, as she prepared the papers for the insurance company, the theft took place at the end of the day and according to the guests the event happened when they had left for dinner after completing check in and having left their suitcases in the apartment.
She says that she does not remember having been told that doors or windows had been forced, the guests having said that they had just left the door on the latch, however she is not certain.
When asked, she says that she was never told of the existence of any suspects or where those responsible for the theft had been identified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-GONCALVES.htm
What if Mrs Fenn's speculations were correct?
She states: "When questioned she said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence."
Is it possible that someone (or a couple of people) gained access to 5A on the 1st May?
If so they may have disturbed MBM which led to the crying (making the assumption that Mrs Fenn's account of the crying is accurate). They may then have left without taking or leaving signs of entry.
If so, this individual (or these individuals) could have returned on the 3rd, perhaps planning to burgle again, or having decided to escalate the crime to a kidnap for ransom.
What if Mrs Fenn's speculations were correct?
She states: "When questioned she said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence."
Is it possible that someone (or a couple of people) gained access to 5A on the 1st May?
If so they may have disturbed MBM which led to the crying (making the assumption that Mrs Fenn's account of the crying is accurate). They may then have left without taking or leaving signs of entry.
If so, this individual (or these individuals) could have returned on the 3rd, perhaps planning to burgle again, or having decided to escalate the crime to a kidnap for ransom.
1. Wasn't Kate in the apartment just before 10.30pm using her phone, just prior to the alleged crying incident?
2. Why would potential burglars have scarpered if they'd gained entry & knew the children had been left on their own? It would make no sense to return in case the children were subsequently being supervised after having been upset.
Alternatively, if no entry had been gained, how would the potential burglars have known the children were on their own?
There is nothing in the files to say that Kate returned to the apartment before 10.30pm on Tuesday, is there?
How do you account for the mobile usage at that time?
It was a mobile phone, not a landline. She could have been anywhere in Luz. She says this about Thursday evening, maybe they always took their phones;
With respect to the objects she says they took with them: their mobile phones. Gerry might have taken a wallet with money. Not sure if they took a camera.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Clarence Mitchell said they had no watches or mobile phones with them, but he was wrong.
the Yorkshire post...
"It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell. "Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't... asking nine people to give exact explanations of what happened at what moment during the evening was never going to produce matching stories; what would have been more suspicious was nine exactly co-ordinated accounts."
Read more at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/analysis/kate-and-gerry-will-search-for-madeleine-to-the-end-of-their-lives-if-that-s-what-it-takes-1-2502642
Why would any of the group have taken a switched-off phone to the dinner-table (given the roaming charges) if they were all together?
When there are quotation marks that means they are quoting direct speech from the named person.
What if Mrs Fenn's speculations were correct?
She states: "When questioned she said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence."
Is it possible that someone (or a couple of people) gained access to 5A on the 1st May?
If so they may have disturbed MBM which led to the crying (making the assumption that Mrs Fenn's account of the crying is accurate). They may then have left without taking or leaving signs of entry.
If so, this individual (or these individuals) could have returned on the 3rd, perhaps planning to burgle again, or having decided to escalate the crime to a kidnap for ransom.
Follow the link and read it in context.Can you help me with that a bit what have I missed IYO?
You need to realise that just because something is reported in a newspaper...even if it looks like an actual qoute it may well not be...that is not my opinion it is a fact
IMO access via a key is entirely plausible, although it is one of a small number of plausible theories.It has always been a mystery why Gerry thought that his chat with Jez took place towards the east side of Rua Francisco G M. [Cutting Edge video]
In this scenario the window may be a distraction; perhaps opening the window/shutters was intended to draw attention away from the use of a key to gain access, or to give the impression that Madeleine had climbed out the window and wandered off, in order to buy time/confuse.
But I believe, from the evidence in the files, that it is "almost certain" (to use SY terminology) that MBM disappeared from the apartment after the MO check around 9:30 (providing parental involvement is ruled out).
This would only require minor modifications to Sadie's theory, in that JT could have potentially seen an abductor when she went change places with ROB after her main meal.
It is a pity the statement from Crecheman is not available, which may help refine what JT may or may not have seen.
All IMO.
Possibly. Or perhaps she heard a child crying from a different apartment (from memory, one of the group's kids was sick that night). There may have been other kids in the block crying at some point that night as well. I wish they'd done a reconstruction with her to determine where she thought the sound was actually coming from.
I don't think newspaper stories can be seen as 'evidence'. Most of what they reported was untrue gossip imo. There's nothing in the official files from this 'Scottish woman';
A second holidaymaker told police an intruder used a key to enter her Ocean Club apartment just three weeks before Madeleine went missing. Express 18th August.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id331.htm
Which police did she tell therefore, the British? How did the Express find her, were the British police 'leaking'?
It's probably as inaccurate as this statement about the man Carol Tranmer saw;
She told the officer the man matched the description of a suspect seen by Jane Tanner one of the McCanns' holiday friends. Express 18th August.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id331.htm
It sounds good, but it's not true.
I don't think newspaper stories can be seen as 'evidence'. Most of what they reported was untrue gossip imo. There's nothing in the official files from this 'Scottish woman';
A second holidaymaker told police an intruder used a key to enter her Ocean Club apartment just three weeks before Madeleine went missing. Express 18th August.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id331.htm
Which police did she tell therefore, the British? How did the Express find her, were the British police 'leaking'?
It's probably as inaccurate as this statement about the man Carol Tranmer saw;
She told the officer the man matched the description of a suspect seen by Jane Tanner one of the McCanns' holiday friends. Express 18th August.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id331.htm
It sounds good, but it's not true.
I think you need to ask Kate McCann, not me.
It sounds good, but it's not true.
How do you know that? Were you there, or is it in YOUR OPINION ?
I used an analysis by Paulo Reis, based on PJ data, for my information about Kate's movements on Tues night & the lack of activity on the others' mobiles which suggested they were switched off & probably left at the apartments.
http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/12/more-on-the-deleted-call-records-where-was-kate-mccann/
So fromThat height could be a bit far to jump off. They tended to tackle ground floor apartments. Easier access and escape.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id331.htm
we have two mentions of burglaries in block 5 in the preceding three weeks.
In both cases the use of a key was mentioned because no obvious damage to either apartment.
I had seen mentions of keys probably used before, but had no idea where to find the mentions, so Thank you to Brietta 8((()*/ and Gunit 8((()*/. I feel sure other burglaries in OC were mentioned too and keys, but have no idea where to find them.
I wonder if the Scottish womans apartment was overlooked by this balcony in block 6 too?
Were the Moyes burgled? Anyone know? They were immediately above Mrs fenn and in view of that balcony
Sadie had formulated much of her theory before we ever heard about Crecheman being traced by SY; I think part of the pity in that episode is that more effort hadn't been put into doing that by investigators closer to the time of Madeleine's disappearance.8@??)(
I have never been totally convinced by DCI Redwood's eureka moment on that one.
But I don't think crecheman's appearance changes much if anything as far as Sadie's theory of what might have happened is concerned.
I agree that the mystery of the window was never about in or egress it was about something else entirely and that may very well have been to cover up the possession of the key.
No other such 'clue' was left in any of the Ocean Club burglaries and with the exception of Mrs Fenn's disturbing experience, nothing to indicate the MO used.
Sadie has suggested that the window had been opened either as an escape route or to pass Madeleine through. As well as expressing the opinion in the instance of 5A there might have been a requirement to deflect attention from something else concerning the crime ... use of a key for the door?
I doubt if even whoever raised the shutter and opened the window in whichever order that was done could ever have anticipated the way in which that action was destined to influence the direction the investigation would take.
The newspaper headlines the day after Madeleine vanished about discrepancies in statements and badly told stories about staged crime scenes must have combined manna from heaven with a get out of goal free card. In my opinion had they planned it that way, it couldn't have worked out better for them.
What I truly cannot understand is why Amaral insisted that no-one could get in the front door, when surely he must have known about Mrs Fenns burglary (using a key?) and another one, the Scottish Lady, in block 5 where it was also suggested that a key must have been used, because no forced entry.
In this case we also know that they were burgled whilst they were at dinner. Madeleine vanished whilst the family were at dinner.
Anyone know what time of day Mrs Fenn was burgled?
Because it was libellous.You claimed one of mine was recently, when it wasn't
I'd agree that many of the press reports at the time need to be taken with quite a bit of salt.Thanks Carana
Sometimes, however, there can be a grain of garbled truth.
She says that as far as she can remember, during the years that she has worked at the resort, she knows of some thefts from inside the apartments and most recently on 16th April 2007 there was a theft from an apartment in Block 5 L, from where a plasma display screen, credit cards and a mobile phone belonging to the respective guests were taken.
As far as she knows, as she prepared the papers for the insurance company, the theft took place at the end of the day and according to the guests the event happened when they had left for dinner after completing check in and having left their suitcases in the apartment.
She says that she does not remember having been told that doors or windows had been forced, the guests having said that they had just left the door on the latch, however she is not certain.
When asked, she says that she was never told of the existence of any suspects or where those responsible for the theft had been identified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-GONCALVES.htm
I do my best to base my posts on facts. I know because I read Carol Tranmer's statement. The man she saw looked nothing like the man described by Jane Tanner. .Good response. Thanks Gunit
he was blonde, with a lot of hair, very short, not like mine but a little more, humm... but not like a footballer, do you know what I mean' A style close to shaven. Very short, blonde, the head was very sculptured. The shape of the head was very sculptured, more oval shaped.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm
That height could be a bit far to jump off. They tended to tackle ground floor apartments. Easier access and escape.I agree, but he jumped from Mrs Fenns apartment, which was first floor at the front and second floor at the back. Actually I sem to remember that the window he went thru opened on to the landing that Mrs fenn entered tghe apartment from .... BUT I am not at all sure that I am remembering that correctly.
I agree, but he jumped from Mrs Fenns apartment, which was first floor at the front and second floor at the back. Actually I sem to remember that the window he went thru opened on to the landing that Mrs fenn entered tghe apartment from .... BUT I am not at all sure that I am remembering that correctly.As a kid we used to leap from the hay barn roof and that was about 4 meters high. I didn't like it but we did it. Sounds like you were better at heights than me. It was good to read that post Sadie.
Otherwise, as i dont think the front was an option with that walkway wall in the way and the rear was rather high with the Mccanns balcony railings in the way (would he have had to go over Mrs Fenns balcony too?) I think that he would have had to jump straight into the street.
When I was a kid, they only had to say "dare you" and I did it. I was always the first to jump off single storey rooves etc. THe boys (older) had to follow suit, or lose face! ... and once I seem to remember escaping a lecherous looking man by jumping off the flat roof. to his 2 storey house = equivalent to jumping from the Moyes apartment
My friend and i shouldn't have been there, but we had been up once before via the outside metal steps attached to the wall .... they were verty tempting ....and loved the adventure and the view over fields in all directions. Jeez, now I couldn't jump down the kerb !
If I could do it in an emergency, then a I bet a youngish man could have done it too. Does anyone know if the Moyes were burgled?
I agree, but he jumped from Mrs Fenns apartment, which was first floor at the front and second floor at the back. Actually I seem to remember that the window he went thru opened on to the landing that Mrs fenn entered tghe apartment from .... BUT I am not at all sure that I am remembering that correctly.
Otherwise, as i dont think the front was an option with that walkway wall in the way and the rear was rather high with the Mccanns balcony railings in the way (would he have had to go over Mrs Fenns balcony too?) I think that he would have had to jump straight into the street.
Actually it isnt that high if one were to climb over the railing and drop down.But thinking about it John, Mrs Fenn says that she tried to catch his foot as he went out thru the window, so it sounds as tho he either jumped on to the street or he escaped thru a window opening onto the landing within the building but outside the flat itself.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@37.0888493,-8.7309898,3a,37.5y,143.82h,96.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqayNA_jzaeH82WsDA7KYyA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
1. Wasn't Kate in the apartment just before 10.30pm using her phone, just prior to the alleged crying incident?
2. Why would potential burglars have scarpered if they'd gained entry & knew the children had been left on their own? It would make no sense to return in case the children were subsequently being supervised after having been upset.
Alternatively, if no entry had been gained, how would the potential burglars have known the children were on their own?
It is, obviously, not possible to be certain on the points you raise, but, in response I believe a possible counter argument would be:
Point 1)
The phone pings do not locate a phone location accurately, and even if they did they do not prove the owner was near the phone.
A member of the bar staff, Salcedas, indicates the Tapas group left at a time consistent with Mrs Fenn's statement.
He makes a sworn statement: "When asked, he said that they would normally stay at the restaurant until 23.30 - 24.00, although some of them would leave earlier, at about 23.00."
Mrs Fenn also indicated her statement could be corroborated.
None of this is certain, but I'm taking the view that, on the balance of probabilities, the crying occurred and it was Madeleine crying; obviously others may take a different view.
Point 2)
This is a good point.
My belief is that the burglars may have had some knowledge (possibly inside knowledge) or belief that the adults were away from the apartments during the evening, and so they could safely target the apartments.
They were then surprised by the crying and scarpered; they realised later (again possibly with inside knowledge) that the children were being left alone.
====
The outline theory is just an extension of the burglary theory, to allow time for planning/surveillance before the actual alledged adbuction.
In other words, instead of the "burglary gone wrong" spontaneous act, there was a planned abduction by local low-level criminals who saw an opportunity.
The window is next to Pamela Fenn's front door. Easy to access and exit. He wasn't spiderman @)(++(*Somehiow I dont think that was the way that he escaped
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8Xf_3Zig_eI/Uc3W1AVt0BI/AAAAAAAABqw/XwMrcVX-l1I/s1204/ee.jpg)
Somehiow I dont think that was the way that he escapedWhat a thicko I am.
I have three reasons for this
1) it seems that the window was opened ready for escape if he left as promptly as appears. Mrs Fenn would have noticed that window open as she approached the front door
2) So close as that to the front door for an escape route seems a non runner to me, cos Mrs Fenn might have come back with friends
3) If that window was open with its relatively easy access, why would there have been thoughts that entrance was facilitated by a key being used in the front door
I think the intruder must have jumped straight out into the street. Phwew!
The window is next to Pamela Fenn's front door. Easy to access and exit. He wasn't spiderman @)(++(*
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8Xf_3Zig_eI/Uc3W1AVt0BI/AAAAAAAABqw/XwMrcVX-l1I/s1204/ee.jpg)
But thinking about it John, Mrs Fenn says that she tried to catch his foot as he went out thru the window, so it sounds as tho he either jumped on to the street or he escaped thru a window opening onto the landing within the building but outside the flat itself.
Nigh night
lol Yeah even spidy would have a job on his hands! Not a scuff mark or spider web to be found...oh speaking of spide webs...
So, looking at this picture and knowing the car park was almost empty, why would a burglar hurry along a street carrying a child, knowing people were in the street where someone could get a view of him, and not just dump the child in the waiting car with engine running ready to zoom off...
Jumping down 1.7 metres is enough to break your leg.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01x-physics-i-classical-mechanics-with-an-experimental-focus-fall-2002/study-materials/jumping.pdf.
That would make sense too Sadie. I agree with Pathfinder's observation, by window she most probably meant the arched opening beside her main entrance.Think that arch led onto the landing where other flats had their front doors.
I'm Sorry Sadie, this thread and your theory are not a real believable deliverable with regards to an achievable outcome to 'catching an alleged burglar/abductor'I am happy for people to challenge it, BUT THEY MUST READ IT FIRST.
I know you put a lot of work into it and duly believe in it, but you have to understand people will challenge it as I have done and not with malice intent. And they will also challenge the parents story.
Jumping down 1.7 metres is enough to break your leg.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01x-physics-i-classical-mechanics-with-an-experimental-focus-fall-2002/study-materials/jumping.pdf.
Jumping down 1.7 metres is enough to break your leg.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01x-physics-i-classical-mechanics-with-an-experimental-focus-fall-2002/study-materials/jumping.pdf.
not to mention the scattered milk tray!.Big problem there
There may have been burglars/abductors lurking watching and conniving, to be very cunning indeed, and all that jazz but the thing is IF they were so well organised and it was well planned why TF would they not just go in through the unlocked door?meh!
Somehiow I dont think that was the way that he escaped
I have three reasons for this
1) it seems that the window was opened ready for escape if he left as promptly as appears. Mrs Fenn would have noticed that window open as she approached the front door
2) So close as that to the front door for an escape route seems a non runner to me, cos Mrs Fenn might have come back with friends
3) If that window was open with its relatively easy access, why would there have been thoughts that entrance was facilitated by a key being used in the front door
I think the intruder must have jumped straight out into the street. Phwew!
The bedroom window is next to the front door. It was reported that Pamela Fenn was on the opposite end, in the living room watching television when she heard a noise. She went to the bedroom and saw the burglar going out through the window and there's no way Pamela Fenn is as quick.
What a thicko I am.
Almost certainly, he scrambled out of the (?other bedroom) window straight on to the slightly sloping roof of the Mccanns kitchen, and from there jumped down to the area in front of their front door .... or even straight into the street. It would be easy peasy to do that
IMO
The bedroom window is next to the front door. It was reported that Pamela Fenn was on the opposite end, in the living room watching television when she heard a noise. She went to the bedroom and saw the burglar going out through the window and there's no way Pamela Fenn is as quick.
Big problem there
The door was LOCKED and needed a key to open it.
Big problem there
The door was LOCKED and needed a key to open it.
Did you really NEED to show off with that citation? Most people will not have clue about DELTA this and DELTA that Algebra. Sixty odd years since I did it, but I wouldn't dream of foisting it on to others
Big problem there
The door was LOCKED and needed a key to open it.
So providing a cite is now showing off?
The opportunist burglar gets in through Fenn's unlocked window and gets back out the same way. They don't need a key to unlock the door.Oh yep?
The bedroom window is next to the front door. It was reported that Pamela Fenn was on the opposite end, in the living room watching television when she heard a noise. She went to the bedroom and saw the burglar going out through the window and there's no way Pamela Fenn is as quick.
Oh yep?
So somehow he climbs up onto the kitchen roof of 5A then goes in through a window that as far as we know was locked?
What do you think was the noise that alerted Mrs Fenn? Was it the sound of the window (and maybe shutters to the bedroom being opened?. Mrs Fenn wasn't fast on her feet and it woud have taken a while for her to get to the other end of the flat.
What caused the noise that alerted her? If it had been the man going thru the window, he would have been far away before Mrs Fenn got there. Al;most certainly it was the sound of the window (and maybe Shutters) being opened that alerted her.
Mrs Fenn was thinking that the man came in by the front door ... was that because she recognised the sound of the window and shutters being opened?
Why is that in bold? I've shown you the window 3 times now. Anybody could get through that unlocked window next to the front door. You don't need a key. It was reported that Mrs Fenn was watching tv when she heard a noise in the bedroom. I presume the burglar was looking in draws and cupboards when he made a noise. After all, he's there looking for valuables not to change the sheets.No, almost without doubt, it wasn't that window ... It doesn't make sense that he would struggle thru a window next to the door where the owner could get out faster than he could climb thru it.
Pamela Fenn was watching tv on the other side of the apartment so of course it was the safest room to enter and exit. How you think she was quicker than a younger opportunist burglar is a mystery ?{)(**You'd wonder how she didn't see his face and identify him if he was a local.
Pamela Fenn was watching tv on the other side of the apartment so of course it was the safest room to enter and exit. How you think she was quicker than a younger opportunist burglar is a mystery ?{)(**
You'd wonder how she didn't see his face and identify him if he was a local.
No matter how much is insinuated there is nothing that links a local to all of this,if there is, a cite would be good.I said "if he was local".
It is, obviously, not possible to be certain on the points you raise, but, in response I believe a possible counter argument would be:
Point 1)
The phone pings do not locate a phone location accurately, and even if they did they do not prove the owner was near the phone.
A member of the bar staff, Salcedas, indicates the Tapas group left at a time consistent with Mrs Fenn's statement.
He makes a sworn statement: "When asked, he said that they would normally stay at the restaurant until 23.30 - 24.00, although some of them would leave earlier, at about 23.00."
Mrs Fenn also indicated her statement could be corroborated.
None of this is certain, but I'm taking the view that, on the balance of probabilities, the crying occurred and it was Madeleine crying; obviously others may take a different view.
Point 2)
This is a good point.
My belief is that the burglars may have had some knowledge (possibly inside knowledge) or belief that the adults were away from the apartments during the evening, and so they could safely target the apartments.
They were then surprised by the crying and scarpered; they realised later (again possibly with inside knowledge) that the children were being left alone.
====
The outline theory is just an extension of the burglary theory, to allow time for planning/surveillance before the actual alledged adbuction.
In other words, instead of the "burglary gone wrong" spontaneous act, there was a planned abduction by local low-level criminals who saw an opportunity.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
*snipped*
On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann's handset was silent all day. Kate McCanns mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the days calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The Creche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann's call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.
On Point 1 my view is "on the balance of probabilities" only (it is provisional), but I have not, at present, changed my view. It is a pity the PJ did not attempt to corroborate the report by Mrs Fenn.
I am not aware of a document in the files which confirms whether the phone activations where in/out or voice/sms. If there is a document it would help to determine whether the phone and the person were in the same location.
There does appear to be a discrepancy in the account quoted related to the section in bold.
The phone activity around that time is recorded as 19:45:03, 20:31:31, 20:33:32, 20:35:58, 20:37:24.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ping/phonemapKate1mei.jpg
Her statement from 6/9/2007 is documented at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
snipped from the statement:
When asked about May 1, 2007 (holiday), she says that on that day they left the apartment around 8:30PM, the same time that was repeated every night.
...
They arrived at the Tapas around 8:31, taking the direct route, i.e. left by the veranda door, went down to the road and entered the secondary reception of the complex.
The above statement potentially undermines the analysis contained in the "deleted" calls document.
Irrespective of the above it is a theoretical possibility that calls were made or texts sent, from the apartment, on a checking visit, with the caller returning to the Tapas bar immediately afterwards.
Overall, I'm not convinced the analysis in the "deleted" calls document sufficiently undermines Mrs Fenn's statement, in order to discount it.
All IMO.
You speculated that people may have gained access to 5A on Tues 1st May. If the analysis is correct, & Kate had been in the apartment for a several minutes on her phone, not long before 10.30pm, that could have been the trigger for any crying.
There are no reports that any other apartments were targeted that night. By 1030pm, I don't think many opportunist burglars would be seeking to enter premises, believing the occupants would be having a late dinner. Had prospective burglars actually entered the apartment via one of the doors around that time & heard a child crying, I don't think they'd have hung around long enough to check there wasn't an adult in either of the bedrooms.
IMO any prospective burglar would not have returned to 5A on Thursday, although I wouldn't discount that night having been a failed attempt. There were 8 families who'd left 11 children at the creche that night. I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of them had left their apartments unattended for at least an hour around the 8.30-9.30pm period. Reconnaissance should have taken a burglar to one of those apartments (again?) & not 5A where the McCanns had allegedly left by the rear door.
It's a big step for a petty thief to move on to kidnapping for ransom. Isn't the target money or valuables/electronics which are easily exchanged for cash? Most surely aren't smart enough to outwit the police when it comes to the exchange & safe getaway, notwithstanding the problems associated with keeping the victim imprisoned & hidden.
BTW - a random question. Why do you think the buckets & spades had been left outside the front door?
Those are rational well argued points.
I tend to the view that there is a danger of over analysing. If something caused MBM to cry on the 1st, in the way Mrs Fenn describes (and it is not certain that her report is true), then there may be a link to events on the 3rd.
The investigative effect would be to analyse the phone data around that time. I'm sure OG have analysed the phone traffic around the 1st May as a matter of course, if they have the data. It is unfortunate if there is no data, because it is possible there was a link between the events.
With respect to motive there is the potential that "opportunity" increased the chance of a crime, based on the "opportunity" may lead to crime theory.
If local knowledge led to someone, especially someone with a criminal background, learning that the children were being left unsupervised then that could feed into the chances of a crime occuring.
One potential motive could have been extortion, which would be risky, but someone may have felt reward jusitified the risk; this calculation could have changed later, after the crime was committed.
MO suggested this a possibility on 4/5/07 : "The interviewee thinks that it is a kidnapping with the intention to demand a ransom from the parents, because these are people who are very comfortable financially."
AFAIK it has not been established whether what happended was the result of a spontaneous crime, e.g. burglary gone wrong, woke/wandered and hit by a driver over the achohol limit, or a planned crime; if it was planned then extortion could have been a motive.
All IMO, with the caveat that it has not been conclusively established that a crime occurred, or if a third party was involved the type of crime that occurred.
No idea about the bucket and spade!
My points may be rational but so much of this case is irrational, from the circumstances surrounding Madeleines disappearance to many of the subsequent events. It is difficult not to over analyse when there are so many extraordinary factors to consider. However, it is safe to say Mrs Fenns phone data would have been quite high on the list of the Mets to-do list, along with all the other data for periods before & after the disappearance.
I understand what you are saying about a local criminal & opportunity. In Sadies theory, there is a watcher & a getaway driver so both would have needed local knowledge about the McCanns & their friends routine, the OC complex & the quickest means of disappearance from the crime scene. IMO, trying to combine those 3 elements into a planned kidnapping following very recently acquired opportunistic knowledge would be incredibly difficult.
MO may well have thought that it could have been a kidnap/ransom situation but IMO such a target would not have been selected from a basic 2 bed holiday apartment & no prior information about the familys financial affairs.
I keep going back to the questions Who knew that the children were alone? followed by What was gained by an (alleged) abduction then making Madeleine disappear without trace?
Re. the buckets & spade I wondered if they had been blown around in the gusty wind that night.
Off topic but I read somewhere else that the clothing Eddie alerted to at the gym was actually in the washing machine when the dog was deployed at the villa. Any thoughts on that?
I agree the case is extraordinary.
It is not easy to separate fact from myth, and then it is necessary to formulate plausible hypotheses.
Mrs Fenn's statement is an example.
If the events she reports occured then a hypothesis could be that there is a link to the eventual disappearance.
I've given one possible hypothesis which has imperfections, and there are other hypotheses which have their own imperfections!
Another (admittedly imperfect) theory is outlined below.
Mrs Fenn reports the crying started about 10:30. It appears that checks of the apartment occur at intervals.
Y. Martin reports she was told the intervals were hourly, so 8:30 (arrive at Tapas), 9:30 (check) and 10:30 (check). Other reports suggest the interval was 30mins, these were reported at approx. 9:00, 9:30, 10:00 on 3rd May.
On the 1st we know there were some phone calls just before 10:30, and these may have been made from the apartment (we don't know for certain), which could indicate a 10:30 check.
Therefore it is possible MBM was disturbed by a check of the apartment, and there is nothing more to it (again, assuming the event is reported accurately by Mrs Fenn).
An alternative hypothesis could be an aborted abduction, which incorporates Sadie's suggestion that there was a 'watcher' as part of a planned abduction.
The ideal time to abduct, in my view, would be shortly after a check, to give maximum time before discovery.
A possible hypothesis could be that a 'watcher' saw the completed check close to 10:30 on the 1st, and a planned abduction was instigated (the watcher and the abductor could be the same person or different people).
Obviously MBM was not abducted on the 1st, so perhaps the aduction was aborted due the MBM starting to cry and making too much noise.
The problem with this theory is why didn't MBM report what had happened? Is is possible she was not fully awake, or perhaps anything she said was dismissed as a bad dream, and insufficient importance was attached to the event by the parents.
But, it is an establised fact that some form of 'cying incident' was reported by the parents, and the strong implication is they believe an earlier attempt to abduct may have taken place, but their timings do not agree with Mrs Fenn's report.
What would be the practical investigative impact of this theorising? In my view, it is important to looks back in time. Check alibis for the earlier days in the week around 8:30pm to 10:30pm - is there a person of interest who could be the watcher? What do the phone records show?
In summary it is possible to formulate theories and hypotheses, but not too easy to follow them through to any kind of conclusion, due to the wide degree of uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the current state of the investigation.
-----
A variation of the opportunity theory would be that someone had general plan, but no specific target in mind.
Then the opportunity presented itself. This is an alternative to the hastily concocted plan.
Financial affairs may not have been known in advance, but it may have become known the group were medical professionals, which could have led to assumptions about finances.
There are a number of plausible motives for a planned abduction; there appears to be a lot of uncertainty with repect to motive.
----
Re: buckets and spade
Based on two statements I believe it is pretty much established there was a breeze on the night of the 3rd.
The rogatory statement by DPayne casts some doubt over whether the window and shutters were open.
In my opinion, a "finder of fact" could reasonably conclude the window and shutters were closed (there is the possibility of a false memory situation, induced by stress - there does appear to be some academic reports about false memories).
----
Re: dogs
The CSI dog is clearly certified to identify blood. There appears to be a fairly rigorous certification process, although how well 'lab' conditions translate into real world conditions is not certain.
The EVRD dog is not so clearly certified, presumably because the purpose of the EVRD dog to locate human remains.
The idea of using the EVRD dog for screening would appear to be far more problematic, and if there is no certification process that would raise 'red flags' as to the efficacy of the method.
It is hard to discount the sheer number of EVRD alerts, but there is no basis, in the opinion of the handler, to draw any conclusions from the alerts unless backed by forensic evidence.
Cross contamination is possible. There is no scientific means of determine what, if anything, EVRD was alerting to.
----
All IMO. It is not been established whether there was an abduction, or whether any crime did occur and, if it did, the motive for the crime.
My points may be rational but so much of this case is irrational, from the circumstances surrounding Madeleines disappearance to many of the subsequent events. It is difficult not to over analyse when there are so many extraordinary factors to consider. However, it is safe to say Mrs Fenns phone data would have been quite high on the list of the Mets to-do list, along with all the other data for periods before & after the disappearance.
I understand what you are saying about a local criminal & opportunity. In Sadies theory, there is a watcher & a getaway driver so both would have needed local knowledge about the McCanns & their friends routine, the OC complex & the quickest means of disappearance from the crime scene. IMO, trying to combine those 3 elements into a planned kidnapping following very recently acquired opportunistic knowledge would be incredibly difficult.
MO may well have thought that it could have been a kidnap/ransom situation but IMO such a target would not have been selected from a basic 2 bed holiday apartment & no prior information about the familys financial affairs.
I keep going back to the questions Who knew that the children were alone? followed by What was gained by an (alleged) abduction then making Madeleine disappear without trace?
Re. the buckets & spade I wondered if they had been blown around in the gusty wind that night.
Off topic but I read somewhere else that the clothing Eddie alerted to at the gym was actually in the washing machine when the dog was deployed at the villa. Any thoughts on that?
That's even more suspicious if true.Well it can be made to sound suspicious, but that would have to mean that the dog search of the villa was timed to coincide with the moving of the cadaver in the rental car. Does the PJ actually know what is going on?
Well it can be made to sound suspicious, but that would have to mean that the dog search of the villa was timed to coincide with the moving of the cadaver in the rental car. Does the PJ actually know what is going on?
It would suggest a knowledge of the skills of the dogs and an attempt to keep possibly contaminated clothing out of the way of them. Nothing to do with a car imo.This is happening early August 3 months after the events in apartment 5A and any clothes worn that night would have been through the wash many times already. So if the clothes were actually alerted to there must have been some reason to recontaminate the clothes and the hire car. But when is the tricky bit.
I agree the case is extraordinary.It would be so much easier to formulate the perfect hypotheses if we had all the info - or maybe not, given how long the PJ & Met have been working on it. :)
It is not easy to separate fact from myth, and then it is necessary to formulate plausible hypotheses.
Mrs Fenn's statement is an example.
If the events she reports occured then a hypothesis could be that there is a link to the eventual disappearance.
I've given one possible hypothesis which has imperfections, and there are other hypotheses which have their own imperfections!
Another (admittedly imperfect) theory is outlined below.
Mrs Fenn reports the crying started about 10:30. It appears that checks of the apartment occur at intervals.
Y. Martin reports she was told the intervals were hourly, so 8:30 (arrive at Tapas), 9:30 (check) and 10:30 (check). Other reports suggest the interval was 30mins, these were reported at approx. 9:00, 9:30, 10:00 on 3rd May.
On the 1st we know there were some phone calls just before 10:30, and these may have been made from the apartment (we don't know for certain), which could indicate a 10:30 check.
Therefore it is possible MBM was disturbed by a check of the apartment, and there is nothing more to it (again, assuming the event is reported accurately by Mrs Fenn).
An alternative hypothesis could be an aborted abduction, which incorporates Sadie's suggestion that there was a 'watcher' as part of a planned abduction.
The ideal time to abduct, in my view, would be shortly after a check, to give maximum time before discovery.
A possible hypothesis could be that a 'watcher' saw the completed check close to 10:30 on the 1st, and a planned abduction was instigated (the watcher and the abductor could be the same person or different people).
Obviously MBM was not abducted on the 1st, so perhaps the aduction was aborted due the MBM starting to cry and making too much noise.
The problem with this theory is why didn't MBM report what had happened? Is is possible she was not fully awake, or perhaps anything she said was dismissed as a bad dream, and insufficient importance was attached to the event by the parents.
But, it is an establised fact that some form of 'cying incident' was reported by the parents, and the strong implication is they believe an earlier attempt to abduct may have taken place, but their timings do not agree with Mrs Fenn's report.
What would be the practical investigative impact of this theorising? In my view, it is important to looks back in time. Check alibis for the earlier days in the week around 8:30pm to 10:30pm - is there a person of interest who could be the watcher? What do the phone records show?
In summary it is possible to formulate theories and hypotheses, but not too easy to follow them through to any kind of conclusion, due to the wide degree of uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the current state of the investigation.
-----
A variation of the opportunity theory would be that someone had general plan, but no specific target in mind.
Then the opportunity presented itself. This is an alternative to the hastily concocted plan.
Financial affairs may not have been known in advance, but it may have become known the group were medical professionals, which could have led to assumptions about finances.
There are a number of plausible motives for a planned abduction; there appears to be a lot of uncertainty with repect to motive.
----
Re: buckets and spade
Based on two statements I believe it is pretty much established there was a breeze on the night of the 3rd.
The rogatory statement by DPayne casts some doubt over whether the window and shutters were open.
In my opinion, a "finder of fact" could reasonably conclude the window and shutters were closed (there is the possibility of a false memory situation, induced by stress - there does appear to be some academic reports about false memories).
----
Re: dogs
The CSI dog is clearly certified to identify blood. There appears to be a fairly rigorous certification process, although how well 'lab' conditions translate into real world conditions is not certain.
The EVRD dog is not so clearly certified, presumably because the purpose of the EVRD dog to locate human remains.
The idea of using the EVRD dog for screening would appear to be far more problematic, and if there is no certification process that would raise 'red flags' as to the efficacy of the method.
It is hard to discount the sheer number of EVRD alerts, but there is no basis, in the opinion of the handler, to draw any conclusions from the alerts unless backed by forensic evidence.
Cross contamination is possible. There is no scientific means of determine what, if anything, EVRD was alerting to.
----
All IMO. It is not been established whether there was an abduction, or whether any crime did occur and, if it did, the motive for the crime.
It would be so much easier to formulate the perfect hypotheses if we had all the info - or maybe not, given how long the PJ & Met have been working on it. :)
A crying incident which occurred involving the McCann children on the Monday or Tuesday was formally reported to the PJ by GM in his statement of 10th May.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise.
Unfortunately, we do not have a statement from Kate taken around the same time which corroborates that particular incident.
Possibly it was Mrs Fenn who suffered a hazy memory re. the crying some 3 months later. She recalled the correct evening but not the precise times the crying started & ceased. If the crying incident did occur after the parents had returned to 5A that night then it is unlikely to have been caused by an aborted abduction attempt IMO, particularly as Madeleine did not mention an unusual disturbance to Kate. Of course,without confirmation from Mrs Glyn & the phone data, its all supposition as you said.
With regard to the frequency of the checks on the Tuesday, I am guessing that they were not half-hourly or even hourly. It was quiz night, which must have taken place during the time the group ate dinner & between 2130 & 2150 hrs the quiz mistress was invited by GM to their table. Possibly between 2030hrs & 2150hrs neither of the McCanns went back to the apartment to check on the children.
There is always the possibility that the scenario you suggested could have taken place on the Wednesday night, when the parents admit to being out later than usual. However, I do struggle with the concept that there was an aborted attempt which left no evidence & that potential abductors failed to take advantage during the extended periods of parental absence. I also struggle with the idea that a non-resident had engaged in prolonged monitoring of the apartment, unnoticed, over 2 or 3 nights before the plan was executed.
IMO Kate was not suffering from false memory about the curtains, window & shutter. Had the window & shutter been as she left it, her first reaction would have been to assume that Madeleine was elsewhere in the apartment, maybe hiding not that someone had taken her. External doors found as they had been left would not have been an indication that she had wandered: a child would wasnt to be able to easily return to the place of safety.
IMO a vehicle had to have been used at some stage or Madeleine would have been found in Luz. That fact alone, though, does not rule out the slight niggle of parental involvement.
They clearly do not have all of the information either?
They have considerably more information than we do, Alice. Maybe they just haven't put it in the right order yet. :)
IMO Kate was not suffering from false memory about the curtains, window & shutter. Had the window & shutter been as she left it, her first reaction would have been to assume that Madeleine was elsewhere in the apartment, maybe hiding not that someone had taken her. External doors found as they had been left would not have been an indication that she had wandered: a child would wasnt to be able to easily return to the place of safety.
I'm picking up on this point. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am just throwing some counter arguments into the mix.
David Payne walked back, with KMcC, after the alarm was raised.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
sniped section:
It was a face of someone's child who had been taken and you know and very clearly said she's gone, she's you know, she's gone, you know and there was a disbelief on our face you know ah you know you must be mistaken, what, and then you know just looking at her we just all err left the table, rushed over to her and as we were walking up towards the flat she said err you know they've taken her and it was, you know, and I know there's been a controversy about what was actually said but you know that is very accurately what had been said. Like I say, as I say you know you could just never forget her face and those words, and err as we were, you know, approaching their apartment I was just saying to Kate,
I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera.
-----
Why did KMcC not talk about the window/shutters with David Payne, surely that would be the first thing she would say?
Her first reaction was to search the apartment for MBM, so I don't think that helps to decide the position of the window and shutters.
How does anyone know, for certain, what state the curtains, window and shutters were in. Even David Payne will not commit, and he was one of the first into the apartment.
There was a full moon that night, perhaps someone simply opened one of the curtains to allow extra light into the room. Or slightly opened one of the windows so they could hear if a parent was returning to the front door.
If the window/shutters were not significantly disturbed then I believe the "burglary gone wrong" theory may have problems.
All IMO.
Sadie's theory revolves around eye witness testimony of which there is sufficient to be going on with. Starting with Kate's description of the open window and Jane's description of the man she had seen at the top of the road.
The most salient evidence being the fact that Madeleine was missing ... not the fact that her mother's analytical thinking was highly unlikely to have kicked in to the extent of vocalising beyond that; or to be capable of conversing about the event in intricate detail in the thirty or so seconds from the tapas to the apartment.
Sadie's theory includes the likelihood that transportation would be required to remove Madeleine from the scene as quickly as possible.
We know from some witness statements that there were vehicles both on the move from car parks and parked on the road outside the the McCann apartment and the tapas as well as elsewhere in Luz.
Snip
"We never heard anything back from the Portuguese police, who in July 2008 officially closed the case."
******************************************************************************************
"Of particular interest to the Metropolitan Police was the speeding pick-up truck that flew past us on the way home from the restaurant ....... "
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/crucial-madeleine-mccann-case-questions-that-remain-unanswered-after-a-decade-35670997.html
In my opinion, Sadie's theory has a substance to it ... which no other theory has been able to replicate without twisting salient facts into improbabilities.
Is there a record of burglaries being carried out in block five?
Have arguidos admitted to burglarising in the resort?
If the answer to both these questions is "Yes" I think it likely it is premature to dismiss a connection with either admitted burglars or free lance operatives who may have inadvertently upped their game from plasma screens to trafficking in one fell swoop.
Given that most criminal acts have more than a little concealment of intention, purpose and action this crowd sure went out of their way to attract attention to themselves. For the most part seemingly by introducing unneccessary and risky activities.
Who remembers Charlie's Angels? The story lines were always dependant on the Professional Agent making a rookie mistake.. ?{)(**
For me the problem with Sadie's theory is the suggestion that this girl and no other was the target. As such, it was vital to get her. Then they sent in the worst team of abductors ever.
OG have, on national television, all but dismissed the Tanner sighting - that might change, but that is the state of play at the moment. I do not see how that can be simply ignored.
I have not suggested trafficking was a motive; although it may be.
I do not believe Sadie's theory is dependent on the window, in fact, I think it is harder to fit the window into Sadie's theory than to ignore the window. If entry was made by the front door then it would have been simpler to exit via the front door.
All IMO.
In my opinion Sadie's theory is fluid insofar as she is entirely open to other explanations or suggestions which either work the available evidence into the equation, as hers does, or which reflect situations which may be within the parameters of possibility.
In my opinion, Sadie's theory owes nothing to the fact that Kate found the window to the children's bedroom open and the shutter raised. There are many acknowledged possibilities to that, perhaps even the possibility that those in possession of a key may have been anxious for that fact to be overlooked ... and if it was a diversionary tactic it must surely have worked out beyond the wildest dreams.
The word 'trafficking' is not one I attributed to you or to anyone else; it is all mine and was used in the context of my post, but though the motive behind Madeleine's disappearance, if there was a motive prior to the event, is obviously pertinent in my opinion, the backbone of Sadie's theory is more in line logically with the method of her removal and those who may be responsible for it.
We can't second guess motive, but we can work out the known parameters within which it could have happened.
Sadie's theory addresses that.
Initially when Sadie started working on her theory, Operation Grange was not in existence. Therefore no-one knew that they were going to trace and identify a man who was carrying his child home as Jane Tanner had described; and the fact that DCI Redwood expressed the view that they were "almost" certain they were one and the same man, in my opinion leaves room for manoeuvre.
DCI Redwood does not actually say that.
The Metropolitan Police last night confirmed it had ruled out a sighting of the man previously seen near the McCanns Portuguese apartment.
Snip
We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.
Mail quotes.
It would be interesting to know what evidence was found on that open window by KM? Oh sorry we do know, no evidence was found except her fingerprints.
What interests me is why supporters are so hellbent on ignoring Redwood's words.
Your statement is inaccurate.
Kate McCann's fingerprints were not the only ones found ...
There were three inadequate prints found on the outside of the shutters ... the report does not mention if the inside of the shutter was dusted or if the outside glass of the window was dusted.
Among the other prints lifted from the apartment was one which was identified as being Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa's of the Lagos GNR.
I'm picking up on this point. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am just throwing some counter arguments into the mix.
David Payne walked back, with KMcC, after the alarm was raised.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
sniped section:
It was a face of someone's child who had been taken and you know and very clearly said she's gone, she's you know, she's gone, you know and there was a disbelief on our face you know ah you know you must be mistaken, what, and then you know just looking at her we just all err left the table, rushed over to her and as we were walking up towards the flat she said err you know they've taken her and it was, you know, and I know there's been a controversy about what was actually said but you know that is very accurately what had been said. Like I say, as I say you know you could just never forget her face and those words, and err as we were, you know, approaching their apartment I was just saying to Kate,
I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera.
-----
Why did KMcC not talk about the window/shutters with David Payne, surely that would be the first thing she would say?
Her first reaction was to search the apartment for MBM, so I don't think that helps to decide the position of the window and shutters.
How does anyone know, for certain, what state the curtains, window and shutters were in. Even David Payne will not commit, and he was one of the first into the apartment.
There was a full moon that night, perhaps someone simply opened one of the curtains to allow extra light into the room. Or slightly opened one of the windows so they could hear if a parent was returning to the front door.
If the window/shutters were not significantly disturbed then I believe the "burglary gone wrong" theory may have problems.
All IMO.
Redwood at the very start.
https://youtu.be/1-4fp4kPi60
Where does he say that Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same person?
Really ? Are you trying to suggest that is not what he meant ?
Where does he say that Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same person?
Feel free to counter-argue. If I was always right there'd be nothing left for me to learn!
The rush to the rear door would have taken around 30 secs. IMO Kate's focus would have been on getting Gerry back to the apartment asap & conversation with Dave would have been limited. Dave's focus seems to have been on the the apartment rather than listening to what was being said (attention to detail not so good after a few beers).
If the window & shutter were not open, how do you explain the reason for Kate being drawn fully into the bedroom i.e the slamming door & bellowing curtain?
I think you need to watch the video again Misty.
DCI Redwood does not actually say that.
As usual, Misty, you are spot on. I have 'over paraphrased' what the DCI actually did say into something he definitely did not say.
No excuse at all for my use of such sloppy language particularly when the transcript of the Crime Wach programme and the video are readily available.
*%^^& ... won't do it again
I think what Redwood said was that Tannerman was not now considered to be the abductor - not that Tannerman was Crecheman. Define "abductor".
No need to apologise. Maybe I am wrong & DCI Redwood did mean that Tannerman was actually Crecheman - but Amaral's insistence that Tannerman was heading from east to west makes me believe otherwise.
If he had meant that he would have said so, Misty, and he very clearly did not say anything of the kind. The misinterpretation is entirely mine biased by my opinion, not what the DCI actually said.
I think it is important not to put words into people's mouths and that is exactly what I did without any sort of caveat.
Just sloppy!
No need to apologise. Maybe I am wrong & DCI Redwood did mean that Tannerman was actually Crecheman - but Amaral's insistence that Tannerman was heading from east to west makes me believe otherwise.
It is possible that Tannerman was an accomplice in the crime of abduction rather than the actual abductor. The abductor was the person who, without lawful excuse, (forcefully) took Madeleine from her bed & the apartment without her consent. MOO.
Anyway, back to Sadie's theory.
I do not agree with the positioning of the getaway vehicle in Block 6 south car park as the man seen carrying the child made no attempt to turn down into Rua DFG Martins. IMO a better location would have been in Block 6 north car park, or further along by Block 1.
It is possible that Tannerman was an accomplice in the crime of abduction rather than the actual abductor. The abductor was the person who, without lawful excuse, (forcefully) took Madeleine from her bed & the apartment without her consent. MOO.
Anyway, back to Sadie's theory.
I do not agree with the positioning of the getaway vehicle in Block 6 south car park as the man seen carrying the child made no attempt to turn down into Rua DFG Martins. IMO a better location would have been in Block 6 north car park, or further along by Block 1.
So you think that Tannerman, who OG fragged as not of interest, OG still think is an accomplice?
Where does he say that Tannerman & Crecheman are one & the same person?
I never claimed he did,but of more importance imo he did not and has never asked for any one else to come forward regarding this.
Crecheman was in area according to OG. He must have been in the area at the same time, otherwise his testimony would be useless.
IMO Crecheman must have ruled out the Tanner sighting as far as OG are concerned.
The question is why?
Are Crecheman and Tannerman the same? Or did Crecheman see someone who OG believe to be Tannerman? If so there would be another witness in the area, who's identity is not known. Or, perhaps, OG think Tanner is mistaken and the witness testimony from Crecheman is sufficient for them to be confident there was no abduction at that time.
Not clear IMO.
Officers from OG and indeed the PJ need to be clear about it,in the unlikely event that an alleged abductor is brought to court these people will be important prosecution witness's.imo.
If the 9.15pm sighting had been totally eliminated, the Met's clock would have had to be put back to 8.30pm. Instead, DCI Redwood said that "more importantly" events between 9.15pm & 10pm took on a greater significance.
Why earlier? Gerry said he saw Madeleine at circa 9:05pm.
Sadie's notion that something untoward occurred (maybe Gerry and Jez?) which interfered with a pre-planned pick up has a ring to it for me. I don't think openly carrying a child for any distance at all would ever figure in any forward planning so the vehicle would have to be parked as close by as possible and the route to it fairly unobtrusive and well known to the carrier.What i think, altho I accept that it might not be right, is that Tannerman never intended to walk anywhere on the open streets carrying Madeleine.
Perhaps even a back-up vehicle? Although further from the target than Sadie's suggestion, the locations you've indicated are only seconds away and as we have seen before the hue and cry, nobody would have paid a blind bit of notice to a man walking the streets while carrying a child.
There was quite a bit of pedestrian traffic coming and going which couldn't be legislated for, as well as people we know of sitting on balconies despite the chill, and probably a few we don't know of.
So all in all a risky venture and if Tannerman was the abductor, without Jane he would have accomplished it sight unseen.
I'm picking up on this point. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am just throwing some counter arguments into the mix.
David Payne walked back, with KMcC, after the alarm was raised.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
sniped section:
It was a face of someone's child who had been taken and you know and very clearly said she's gone, she's you know, she's gone, you know and there was a disbelief on our face you know ah you know you must be mistaken, what, and then you know just looking at her we just all err left the table, rushed over to her and as we were walking up towards the flat she said err you know they've taken her and it was, you know, and I know there's been a controversy about what was actually said but you know that is very accurately what had been said. Like I say, as I say you know you could just never forget her face and those words, and err as we were, you know, approaching their apartment I was just saying to Kate,
I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera.
-----
Why did KMcC not talk about the window/shutters with David Payne, surely that would be the first thing she would say?
Her first reaction was to search the apartment for MBM, so I don't think that helps to decide the position of the window and shutters.
How does anyone know, for certain, what state the curtains, window and shutters were in. Even David Payne will not commit, and he was one of the first into the apartment.
There was a full moon that night, perhaps someone simply opened one of the curtains to allow extra light into the room. Or slightly opened one of the windows so they could hear if a parent was returning to the front door.
If the window/shutters were not significantly disturbed then I believe the "burglary gone wrong" theory may have problems.
All IMO.
The moon didn't rise until about ten that night. I have posted official times on here at least twice before .... and IMO such info should be kept in a special "Indesputable Info Section"
At my age I cant keep looking these things up again. IIRC the moon rose just after 10 pm.
I seem to remember that it was one day off Full Moon.
#
Please correct me if I have remembered any of the above info incorrectly
The moon didn't rise until about ten that night. I have posted official times on here at least twice before .... and IMO such info should be kept in a special "Indesputable Info Section"
At my age I cant keep looking these things up again. IIRC the moon rose just after 10 pm.
I seem to remember that it was one day off Full Moon.
#
Please correct me if I have remembered any of the above info incorrectly
As the car park was on the north side of block 5 I don't think moonlight would have had any significance as the moon tracks from east to west along a southerly arc. Do you happen to know if it was a clear night on the 3rd May 2007 or was there cloud cover?Exactly Angelo. With the high trees to the eastern end of block 5 car park not a lot of any light would get thru to illuminate that car park.
I've rechecked and the moon did not pass the horizon until 9:54pm.
https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/@2266934?month=5&year=2007
Between 8:30pm and 9:54pm it was twilight, with the Sun moving further below the horizon, and the full moon moving towards the horizon.
Around 9pm the Sun was about 8-10 degrees below horizon and moon about the same.
Sunset at 8:25pm
All the above figures correct to the best of my knowledge.
What i think, altho I accept that it might not be right, is that Tannerman never intended to walk anywhere on the open streets carrying Madeleine.
My theory is that they had worked out the timing pretty accurately.
- Going in and out of the apartment, opening shutters and window and lifting Madeleine, took probably about a minute, maybe less.
- The walk for The Watcher/ Getaway driver, which was down block 6 back steps, thru the back garden, thru the garden gate and into the get away vehicle ... and then the drive up to then car park entrance would probably take about the same time .... NORMALLY
But as The Getaway driver started to come off that little car park (opposite Tapas secondary Reception) and started to turn right to go up Rua Francisco Gentils Martins he was suddenly aware of Gerry and Jez in the middle of the very street he had to drive up. Gerry and Jez aware that a vehicle was trying to come up the street where they were standing, backed away to the western side of the street by the alleyway
The driver dithered. Should he brazenly drive past the father of the child they were abducting?
In the meantime Jane appeared and he further dithered.
Meanwhile Tannerman literally left holding the baby (Madeleine) was getting really anxious. Why wasn't his getaway vehicle there? .... So he risked walking to the corner to have a look-see.
Jane was almost upon him, so he took a snap decision to carry on walking in the direction he was going. had he turned around, Jane would have been following him And after all walking the way he was he could double back to the car park and get-away vehicle via the dimly lit alleyways.
The dithering Getaway driver suddenly saw Tannerman carrying Madeleine appear and Jane was almost upon him, witnessing the abductor
Panicking, he turned tail and drove off down the street in a Southerly direction .... leaving Tannerman, carrying Madeleine, in the lurch
I know that this may not be what happened, but it could well be .
Everything, including all the points that I made a few days ago, fits perfectly.
It also explains why Gerry thought that he chatted with Jez on the other side of the street.
Because initially he made the conscious effort to cross the street, meeting Jez in the middle /Eastern side of the street. That changed when the getaway vehicle swung out causing them to back to the western side of the street, which Jane and Jez remember
I think that Jane was able to pick up some colour, enabled by the light that the getaway drivers vehicle headlights produced. The street lights being sodium were virtually monochromatic,and gave out a sickly yellow glow. Other than yellow, they showed little colour on their own
Jane was able to recognize some colour, so I would suggest that the getaway vehicles headlights flicked across Tannerman and helped her do that.
AIMHO
Note to moderators: The above is Sadie's theory as to what may have occurred.
Was it possible to go out of the back of block 6 without entering an apartment?
If Jes and Gerry moved because of a car, why didn't they mention it?
If the cars headlights lit up Tannerman the car would have been almost fully into the road, facing upwards. The driver would either have to do a tight u-turn or a reverse to go down the road. Is it feasible that no-one noticed this manoeuvring?
Of course not.4 questions and only one answer. That is a fail.
Of course not.
Was it possible to go out of the back of block 6 without entering an apartment?
If Jes and Gerry moved because of a car, why didn't they mention it?
If the cars headlights lit up Tannerman the car would have been almost fully into the road, facing upwards. The driver would either have to do a tight u-turn or a reverse to go down the road. Is it feasible that no-one noticed this manoeuvring?
Tbh, I dont know the answer to that. I think that it would be cheaper to just build the one staircase to serve the front entrance and back, but this would involve a landing /passageway of some sort. Dunno what method they used but on G.Earth there is no evidence of any steps on the back of this section of block 6. Surely all the apartments would have access to the rear and the parking there
When you are deeply engrossed in conversation one almost goes into automatic mode IMO. They got out of the way by moving back to the western kerb ... and never thought about it again. Not important
From the exit of the little car park opposite the Tapas Reception Area to the place where Gerry and Jez were chatting. The get-away driver could have come out and straightened up and still have been 15 metres, or so, short of Gerry and Jez chatting spot. Tannerman was a further 30 metres up the road and well lit by a very close street lamp. Jane was a little closer.
Yep the driver would have to make a turn backing into the entrance of the little car park, but that is not difficult for most drivers. I think it quite likely that his headlamps briefly lit Tannerman for Jane.
Most car headlights are monochromatic (show no colour, just shades).
So if this vehicle lit Tannerman showing colour, it reduces the types of vehicles used for the getaway to ones that gave a polychromatic spectrum of colours when lighting something.
A very useful clue if my theory is correct.
Just my theory, so it may or may not be correct.
More whatifery. The evidence does not support your theory.Oh, but it does. Where is that formidable "thinking cap" of yours?
Tbh, I dont know the answer to that. I think that it would be cheaper to just build the one staircase to serve the front entrance and back, but this would involve a landing /passageway of some sort. Dunno what method they used but on G.Earth there is no evidence of any steps on the back of this section of block 6. Surely all the apartments would have access to the rear and the parking there
When you are deeply engrossed in conversation one almost goes into automatic mode IMO. They got out of the way by moving back to the western kerb ... and never thought about it again. Not important
From the exit of the little car park opposite the Tapas Reception Area to the place where Gerry and Jez were chatting. The get-away driver could have come out and straightened up and still have been 15 metres, or so, short of Gerry and Jez chatting spot. Tannerman was a further 30 metres up the road and well lit by a very close street lamp. Jane was a little closer.
Yep the driver would have to make a turn backing into the entrance of the little car park, but that is not difficult for most drivers. I think it quite likely that his headlamps briefly lit Tannerman for Jane.
Most car headlights are monochromatic (show no colour, just shades).
So if this vehicle lit Tannerman showing colour, it reduces the types of vehicles used for the getaway to ones that gave a polychromatic spectrum of colours when lighting something.
A very useful clue if my theory is correct.
Just my theory, so it may or may not be correct.
I would expect a theory to contain factual possibilities, not guesses. Block 6 had a car park, so no need for access to the one to the south.
The distance from the car park exit to the corner of the path is 25m. The distance to the top of the road is 60m. Low beam headlights will allow you to see an object in the road 45m away. High beam headlights may have lit up Tannerman, but three people would have noticed them blazing away in my opinion.
Oh, but it does. Where is that formidable "thinking cap" of yours?
Despite the fact that the evidence DOES support my theory, unlike some on here I do not claim that it is fact.
Unlike some, i can see that there are things that we do not know which could preclude my theory
But you are quite incorrect Gunit, my theory is backed in several ways by evidence or facts.
It could have happened like I am thinking, IMO, and it seems the opinion of others.
Oh no it doesn't !!
Give me one statement from the main protagonists that mentions seeing a moving car between 9-9.30 ?
I dont know for certain if there is a way through as I stated a few posts back ... but ....
Has it occurred to you that the watcher might have rented (or gained free entrance to) the ground floor flat in block 6 adjacent to the balconies? With all the burglary entries apparently via front doors, keys seem to have been available from some source.
We have measured to slightly different spots but basically to a metre or so, I agree with your measurements.
Had The Getaway driver pulled out, straightened up and stopped 15 metres***** before the vehicle reached Gerry and Jez, then the distance to Tannerman would have been 45 metres. Even with the low level lamps, Tannerman would be lit up. With high level lamps he woulf be lit up royally ... and Jane would be enabled to see colours as she claimed.
[***** 15 metres is being generous to you cos he might have driven closer than that before realizing who he was approaching. He also needed stopping distance. THen he would have been well inside the 45 metres to Tannerman rather than on the edge of it.]
Oh, but it does. Where is that formidable "thinking cap" of yours?
Despite the fact that the evidence DOES support my theory, unlike some on here I do not claim that it is fact.
Unlike some, i can see that there are things that we do not know which could preclude my theory
But you are quite incorrect Gunit, my theory is backed in several ways by evidence or facts.
It could have happened like I am thinking, IMO, and it seems the opinion of others.
Arlindo http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
". When he left, he noticed that the dark blue vehicle was no longer in its location (previously noted) and does not know of the existence or any connection between the presence of that vehicle and the disappearance of the child; " A car had moved.
A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
Arlindo http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
". When he left, he noticed that the dark blue vehicle was no longer in its location (previously noted) and does not know of the existence or any connection between the presence of that vehicle and the disappearance of the child; " A car had moved.
His time puts the alert at around 9:20 pm Hmmm, $*6%Considering Arlindo is a manager of some sort how does one explain his statement? Was he drunk? That he was hearing things and then at a certain time he leaves himself in a motor car.
Considering Arlindo is a manager of some sort how does one explain his statement? Was he drunk? That he was hearing things and then at a certain time he leaves himself in a motor car.
What kind of slur is that to suggest he might be drunk,he drove to the tapas from the central kitchen (how far was that?)what if his times were correct? it would certainly lend more credence to Tannerman if its so.imoWell how was I to interpret your emoticon? "His time puts the alert at around 9:20 pm Hmmm, $*6%" What were you meaning?
Well how was I to interpret your emoticon? "His time puts the alert at around 9:20 pm Hmmm, $*6%" What were you meaning?That the other times are incorrect? the whole nine yards is because of the alleged time keeping and checking written on the scrap book,all scenarios are still in according to Rowley,which if his timings(chef) are correct lends even more credence to Tannerman imo.Maybe that's why as some like to point out Tannerman and Crecheman mighten be the same.
Considering Arlindo is a manager of some sort how does one explain his statement? Was he drunk? That he was hearing things and then at a certain time he leaves himself in a motor car.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
"and is employed as executive chef of the kitchen. He clarifies that along with being responsible for the five (5) kitchens (one of whom is the Tapas) of the Ocean Club, his post essentially centres on the principal kitchen next to a reception, close to the restaurant MIRAGE. His work takes him occasionally to the other kitchens;
. He records that the past Thursday, 3rd of May, he left the central kitchen with the objective of going to the Tapas restaurant in order to determine that everything was functioning smoothly; "
So how does he get from A to B?
"When he arrived there, by vehicle , at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates. Although he cannot be definite, he believes it was a Fiesta or Focus. The deponent furthers that is was not a small car, and for this reason it could very well have been a Focus and not a Fiesta. He tells that he does not remember any sticker indicating that it was a rental car. Inside the vehicle he saw no one.
So one presumes when he left he left by vehicle too.
"Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
. When he left, he noticed that the dark blue vehicle was no longer in its location (previously noted) and does not know of the existence or any connection between the presence of that vehicle and the disappearance of the child; " So even if you discount the rest of his statement he comes and goes by car but also describes another car had left as well.
Now Faithlilly wanted "Give me one statement from the main protagonists that mentions seeing a moving car between 9-9.30 ?" Now Arlindo himself must fit that bill, and if he is correct about the other vehicle there was two car movements.
All sorts of people were driving around that night. I can name four without trying;What happens if you put their driving times in too?
Jenny Murat.
Hayley May Crawford
Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja
Maria Manuela Martins da Silva
What happens if you put their driving times in too?
Jenny Murat. - too early
Hayley May Crawford - 21H00 a bit early
Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja - Suspicious
Maria Manuela Martins da Silva - too late
Without being bothered to check it out, Robitty, how many of the statements of the people who volunteered the information that they were driving that night was corroborated by others?
I can't think of any. Which suggests to me that persons interviewed weren't asked about traffic movement or parked vehicles. I think it is unrealistic to assume that there was no vehicular movement in Luz within the timescale of, for the sake of argument 2100 to 2230.
I think only two witnesses mentioned parked vehicles. There is no CCTV of vehicle movement either within the environs of Luz or further afield apart from service stations.
In my opinion the investigation neglected to tie in Madeleine's disappearance with the possibility she had been transferred to a vehicle and driven as far away and as quickly as possible from Luz.
In my opinion Sadie's theory rectifies that omission by including the possibility, perhaps even the probability that there was a waiting vehicle nearby in which it was intended to move Madeleine.
Without being bothered to check it out, Robitty, how many of the statements of the people who volunteered the information that they were driving that night was corroborated by others?
I can't think of any. Which suggests to me that persons interviewed weren't asked about traffic movement or parked vehicles. I think it is unrealistic to assume that there was no vehicular movement in Luz within the timescale of, for the sake of argument 2100 to 2230.
I think only two witnesses mentioned parked vehicles. There is no CCTV of vehicle movement either within the environs of Luz or further afield apart from service stations.
In my opinion the investigation neglected to tie in Madeleine's disappearance with the possibility she had been transferred to a vehicle and driven as far away and as quickly as possible from Luz.
In my opinion Sadie's theory rectifies that omission by including the possibility, perhaps even the probability that there was a waiting vehicle nearby in which it was intended to move Madeleine.
What happens if you put their driving times in too?
Jenny Murat. - too early
Hayley May Crawford - 21H00 a bit early
Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja - Suspicious
Maria Manuela Martins da Silva - too late
Without being bothered to check it out, Robitty, how many of the statements of the people who volunteered the information that they were driving that night was corroborated by others?
I can't think of any. Which suggests to me that persons interviewed weren't asked about traffic movement or parked vehicles. I think it is unrealistic to assume that there was no vehicular movement in Luz within the timescale of, for the sake of argument 2100 to 2230.
I think only two witnesses mentioned parked vehicles. There is no CCTV of vehicle movement either within the environs of Luz or further afield apart from service stations.
In my opinion the investigation neglected to tie in Madeleine's disappearance with the possibility she had been transferred to a vehicle and driven as far away and as quickly as possible from Luz.
In my opinion Sadie's theory rectifies that omission by including the possibility, perhaps even the probability that there was a waiting vehicle nearby in which it was intended to move Madeleine.
If there was an abduction, and lets be honest, there is no evidence whatsoever to support one, a getaway car would be essential. That would of course degrade the Smith sighting to nothing more than an innocent local going about his business.
Without evidence that Sadie's vehicle existed it rectifies nothing. It's an imaginary vehicle.
In Your Opinion. Let's be clear about that.
I am getting very tired of your pronouncements.
In Your Opinion. Let's be clear about that.
I am getting very tired of your pronouncements.
Nonsense. Of course the PJ investigated for a getaway vehicle in a possible kidnapping! They found no evidence. Smithman used his feet.
"In the same way he relates never to have perceived suspicious movements undertaken by any motor vehicles in the vicinity of the resort where they were lodged.
by the way, he relates never to have perceived the presence of a blue light motor vehicle in the vicinity of the Ocean Club Garden." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
While he maintained the conversation with JEZ he saw no-one from the group, nor detected any suspicious individual or vehicle. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
If there was an abduction, and lets be honest, there is no evidence whatsoever to support one, a getaway car would be essential. That would of course degrade the Smith sighting to nothing more than an innocent local going about his business.
. After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people, and that in the immediate areas of the blocks she saw no vehicle with the exception of a small car, that appeared to her grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment;
She declares further that she mentioned this fact to her boyfriend and that it wasn't yet summer given the movement on the roads, and at that hour movement was nill;
. States that she looked at the exit of the apartment and that from the flat above the McCanns, she saw light, and also in from of the apartment, but she could not define, concretely, where she saw the light when she passed the McCann apartment;
. Next to the tree, she did not detect any movement of people or vehicles, and nothing struck her as abnormal in that zone that would have raised her suspicions;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
At least one vehicle left the Block six parking area before the alarm was raised that Madeleine was missing from her bed. No-one noticed either its departure or the route it took.
If one vehicle moved without comment from the area designated in Sadie's theory, in my opinion it is not outwith the bounds of possibility there could well have been others.
I think Sadie's theory is workable and so far I've seen no valid argument which debunks that.
A flaw I have noticed in your argument is that the Policia Judiciaria did not know that 'Smithman' existed, for the simple reason the Smiths hadn't linked Madeleine's disappearance with the man they saw on the third and didn't report it to the police until a fortnight later.
Excellent research though which highlights that neither Matt or Gerry noticed any vehicles in the vicinity which raised any worries as far as they were concerned ... but with respect, they were not the only individuals abroad who might have noticed something amiss.
In Sadie's theory, at least 3 people would have been required - a watcher, an abductor & a getaway driver. A watcher would have had no quick route from the upper north balcony in Block 6 to the south car park. IMO.
That's not an opinion, that's what those of us intelligent enough to recognise it a fact.It is a theory so how can you say that it isn't a fact that the theoretical car didn't exist. OK it might not exist in your preferred theory but that is just another theory.
Nobody thought anything was unusual that night except for the McCanns when they entered their apartment on their checks (Gerry's first visual check on the person that disappeared - fascinating) i.e. both say it was the children's door having moved that made them investigate it. Lucky the door had moved or they wouldn't have known if Madeleine was there or not. Let's not have a visual check like normal to check on them but do it because of a moving door *%87 Time to find the key ?>)()<Is that the KEY that unlocks this mystery?
It is a theory so how can you say that it isn't a fact that the theoretical car didn't exist. OK it might not exist in your preferred theory but that is just another theory.
Without evidence that Sadie's vehicle existed it rectifies nothing. It's an imaginary vehicle.
Precisely: an opinion is an opinion a theory is a theory and a fact is a fact. The first two I consider can be categorised as 'informed' or 'uninformed'. Sadie's theory is in my opinion an informed one; but even so she has never pretended it is fact and remains open to discussion which might add to or detract from it.
In my opinion ~ so far I have seen put downs and ridicule but nothing of substance to refute any of the salient points that Sadie has raised.
. After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people, and that in the immediate areas of the blocks she saw no vehicle with the exception of a small car, that appeared to her grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment;
She declares further that she mentioned this fact to her boyfriend and that it wasn't yet summer given the movement on the roads, and at that hour movement was nill;
. States that she looked at the exit of the apartment and that from the flat above the McCanns, she saw light, and also in from of the apartment, but she could not define, concretely, where she saw the light when she passed the McCann apartment;
. Next to the tree, she did not detect any movement of people or vehicles, and nothing struck her as abnormal in that zone that would have raised her suspicions;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
At least one vehicle left the Block six parking area before the alarm was raised that Madeleine was missing from her bed. No-one noticed either its departure or the route it took.
If one vehicle moved without comment from the area designated in Sadie's theory, in my opinion it is not outwith the bounds of possibility there could well have been others.
I think Sadie's theory is workable and so far I've seen no valid argument which debunks that.
You can add Jane, Russell and Jez to that list. No getaway car. No sounds. Mrs Fenn heard nothing from below. Nothing unusual for Matt on two checks within 30 minutes. Moyes on the balcony heard nothing. Maybe there was nothing to hear ? Yes the simple explanation leads you to the truth! They know all about Smithman now.
There was nothing to hear? Yet Madeleine is gone.
Either before or after that event it is my opinion that a vehicle was a prerequisite to remove her unseen from the vicinity.
Sadie's theory covers that eventuality which in my opinion is one of the immediate probabilities the investigation should have investigated with more vigour than perhaps they did.
Sadie, is merely giving vent to her theories, which cannot be proved.
Now, pray tell, what evidence is there that an abductor(s) ever existed ?
There was nothing to hear? Yet Madeleine is gone.
Either before or after that event it is my opinion that a vehicle was a prerequisite to remove her unseen from the vicinity.
Sadie's theory covers that eventuality which in my opinion is one of the immediate probabilities the investigation should have investigated with more vigour than perhaps they did.
And you have some evidence that an abductor never did?
But then of course you don't.
Precisely, just an opinion.
Demonstrate that the initial investigation did not address this issue with the degree of vigour necessary.Snip
. After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people, and that in the immediate areas of the blocks she saw no vehicle with the exception of a small car, that appeared to her grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment;
She declares further that she mentioned this fact to her boyfriend and that it wasn't yet summer given the movement on the roads, and at that hour movement was nill;
. States that she looked at the exit of the apartment and that from the flat above the McCanns, she saw light, and also in from of the apartment, but she could not define, concretely, where she saw the light when she passed the McCann apartment;
. Next to the tree, she did not detect any movement of people or vehicles, and nothing struck her as abnormal in that zone that would have raised her suspicions;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
At least one vehicle left the Block six parking area before the alarm was raised that Madeleine was missing from her bed. No-one noticed either its departure or the route it took.
If one vehicle moved without comment from the area designated in Sadie's theory, in my opinion it is not outwith the bounds of possibility there could well have been others.
I think Sadie's theory is workable and so far I've seen no valid argument which debunks that.
The whole point is, that to prove an abductor existed, you need evidence.
I have yet to see unassailable evidence of that.
The car you refer to was in the north car park belonging to block 6.
The car you refer to was in the north car park belonging to block 6.as opposed to one in the south car park? How did you work that out?
In my opinion ... a constructive opinion which is all perfectly workable and commensurate with the circumstances surrounding Madeleine McCann's disappearance. The investigation of which in my opinion could have been classed as one in which "none so blind as those xwho will not see" seemed to prevail.
It is a theory so how can you say that it isn't a fact that the theoretical car didn't exist. OK it might not exist in your preferred theory but that is just another theory.
Snip
Neither border nor marine police were given descriptions of Madeleine for many hours, and officers did not appear to make extensive door-to-door inquiries.[70] According to Madeleine's mother, roadblocks were first put in place at 10 am the next morning.[54] Police did not request motorway surveillance pictures of vehicles leaving Praia da Luz that night, or of the road between Lagos and Vila Real de Santo Antσnio on the Spanish border; the company that monitors the road, Euroscut, said they were not approached for information.[71] It took Interpol five days to issue a global missing-person alert.[54]
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann.html
Hmmm ... so leaving the North parking area, a right then a left turn leads them past the entrance to the car park at block five ... OK.
It does.
They left the building and the deponent and her boyfriend took the Opel Frontera, previously indicated, which was parked out front of the apartment, in the private parking area of Block 6 where her friend's apartment was located;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
It does.
They left the building and the deponent and her boyfriend took the Opel Frontera, previously indicated, which was parked out front of the apartment, in the private parking area of Block 6 where her friend's apartment was located;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
That would have taken them towards Murat's villa, not Block 5.
They used the exit facing block 5.I apologise, you are correct. That exit is the only way in or out of Block 6 north car park.
I apologise, you are correct. That exit is the only way in or out of Block 6 north car park.
Arlindo http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htmOh, thank you, Rob.
". When he left, he noticed that the dark blue vehicle was no longer in its location (previously noted) and does not know of the existence or any connection between the presence of that vehicle and the disappearance of the child; " A car had moved.
In Sadie's theory, at least 3 people would have been required - a watcher, an abductor & a getaway driver. A watcher would have had no quick route from the upper north balcony in Block 6 to the south car park. IMO.Even * IF * there was no ultra quick way thru to the car parking area opposite the tapas reception, it would have been simplicity itself for The Watcher to exit via the front steps, turning right (east) and almost immeditely turn right again (south) down the alleyway that leads to the other end of that same little car park, which needed a third right turn.
Precisely: an opinion is an opinion a theory is a theory and a fact is a fact. The first two I consider can be categorised as 'informed' or 'uninformed'. Sadie's theory is in my opinion an informed one; but even so she has never pretended it is fact and remains open to discussion which might add to or detract from it.
In my opinion ~ so far I have seen put downs and ridicule but nothing of substance to refute any of the salient points that Sadie has raised.
Sadie, is merely giving vent to her theories, which cannot be proved.
Now, pray tell, what evidence is there that an abductor(s) ever existed ?
Taking a right then a left from where you insist, might have endangered Mrs Murat yet again should she have endeavoured to exit her drive around that time ... but I do not think it would have enabled them to pass the entrance to block five as the witness described they did in the continuation of the cite you have provided.When that girl left the north (front) car Park to block 6, she would see a very high walll blocking her view of 5A completely.
In my opinion the design of block six differs considerably from block five. The witness does not say exactly where the vehicle was parked but she does give a clear indication of exactly where the residence was situated.
Snip
. That she often visits ********, sister of her boyfriend, who resides in Block 6, Apartment 5 in the resort known as the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, in Lagos
. The block in question is contiguous with that one occupied by the McCann family, and is a ground-floor with a kitchen window having visibility to the back windows of the apartment occupied by Madeleine McCann;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8959156.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Front-of-block-6.jpg)Front of block 6 at the Praia Da Luz Ocean Club Resort where Madeleine McCann went missing from flat 5a in block 5 of the resort in Portugal (Image: Philip Coburn / Daily Mirror)http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-happened-praia-da-luz-10256470
... and in 2017 still confusion of what is front and what is back.(https://shininginluz.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/streetview-aug-2009.jpg)https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/page/31/
These are the ground floor windows from which the windows of 5A can be seen. In my opinion it is six of one and half a dozen of the other which car park was more convenient to be used ... but whichever ... it is a matter of opinion; but it is a fact that a vehicle moved from a car park in close proximity to apartment 5A and no-one apart from the occupants noted it. Not only an invisible abductor but an invisible vehicle unless we go with the witness statement.
But still, in my opinion, a valid part of Sadie's theory of what events might have taken place on the night Madeleine vanished.
Thank you Brie
I am used to put downs and ridicule. Par for the course ?>)()<
It is only a theory that could well work and is designed to possibly help the hunt for who did it . So lead to Madeleine hopefully.
So much anger at what I have suggested makes me wonder why? Strange .... very strange Mmmm?
Oh, hello Stephen .
Good to see you back .... I was worrying about you. Do hope that you are well 8((()*/
My life does not revolve about this forum or case Sadie. 8(>((
Oh really? ?{)(**
Glad you are OK anyway
Your theory isn't based on fact. If it was you would have researched the possibility of strangers being able to exit block 6 to the south. You didn't. Also, you would have taken witness statements into account before suggesting that your hypothetical getaway vehicle allowed Tanner to see colours.
Due to your lack of research it has fallen to others to point out that your assumptions aren't supported by any facts. That's frustrating because in my opinion it's the job of the person who proposes a theory to make sure it takes facts into account.
The answer isn't to change the narrative, it's to accept that a theory based on assumptions and inventions has no real value. It's just a story in my opinion.
Oh yes Sadie.
Many interests, plus work of course. 8((()*/
And you have some evidence that an abductor never did?
But then of course you don't.
Here it is;Thankyou for the photos Gunit.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KIddWd4Gh2E/TzjzouVaT7I/AAAAAAAAAss/wbDWYMUaDHw/s1600/Praia%2Bda%2BLuz%2B01.JPG)
Thankyou for the photos Gunit.
The RH bulging part is the stairwell, and the balcony we are interested isjust off the pictureon its RH side.
What is of interest is that the image shows the way thru that The Watcher might have taken to get to his getaway vehicle at the back of block 6.
The entrance to the alleyway that he turned right into is immediately to the left of the LH silver car. The walk is no distance, simply part encircling the block, ... then right along the depth of the building and a short way back to the nearest vehicle parking spot.
A hop, skip and a jump of just70 metres, nay 75 metres. Walked in a minute by a younger man.
In and out of 5A with a key and the lifting of Madeleine would also take about minute.
The times matched.
Just a theory and AIMO ... but checkable on GE
Sorry Gunit, but my normal computer is out of commision atm and on this ancient computer I am not getting everything. To begin with I only got part of the image despite scrolling it across
Also I am not able to open any websites or youtubes mentioned
Neither can I award "likes" .... and some of the smileys have vanished 8(8-))
All a bit limiting.
The hypothetical, unproven to exist Watcher, is what you should have said.Agreed, a hypothetical theory
Agreed, a hypothetical theory
But everything fits and everything is totally plausible and possible.
As such it should be considered and not lightly dismissed.
It might help find the ?abductor and might help get Madeleine home.
Again Sadie, abduction is unproven.
Can you remember what John said about stating abduction or any other scenario as fact, when none of them have been affirmed or disproved ?
Going out the back way as mentioned before, whilst being slightly closer, is not I have realised the safest way
The SAFEST WAY is going out the front way, turning right, then right again into the alleyway. Then first right again on to the hidden end of the little end of the car park
Only 70 metres, only a one minute walk for a young man.
Aand the vehicle is no longer in sight of the Tapas Secondary Reception or the route walked by the Tapas friends when checking their little ones..
It is just walking around block 6 rather than through it.
Easy peasy and SAFE
I wonder if Raj and Neil saw him? I guess that as they were sitting down and the balcony wall was solid, that they might not. Maybe they saw some lights come on and stood up as it pulled away? SY would know, I guess
This is only conjecture .... but it would be interesting to speak to them .... or even see the missing statements .... because it could have happened .... and would solve some of the mysteries asurrounding this case if it did.
AIMHO, but only a possibility
Thank you Gunit for making me think again. This is what feed back is all about, it jolts my thinking and helps me adjust parts that dont sit so prettily. I was a little concerned that in my original thoughts, the vehicle was in dsight of the Tapas reception. It's much better now . Cheers Gunit 8((()*/
I haven't stated abduction, or any other scenario as fact, despite the fact that I strongly believe that Madeleine was abducted .... and that she was still alive inn 2012 .... and probably still is.
Going back to the Paul Luckman interview by former Sky News anchorman Eamonn Holmes for a moment. Luckman said that he asked around with regard to the other claimed burglaries but could find nothing specific. I'm not at all surprised really given who is going to admit to a newspaper editor that their premises are regularly targeted by burglars. Its very bad for business!!
I would be bloody amazed if no apartments in a holiday resort were targeted by petty criminals.
Anyone who thinks petty crime in a holiday complex is unusual sinister etc should get out more.
This is what holiday apartments are to petty criminals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB41AxAV9fM
Returning to Mr Redwood's comments in the video. He has identified a British holiday maker, returning to their apartment, who was in the area.
A transcript of an interview by Mrs Moyes states:
Q: Can you take us back to that night and... and what you were doing and when you first heard there was a problem?
SM: Sure. We went out for a meal about 7 o'clock, down in the town, we walked back about 9 o'clock, round past, errm... the... the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment, went out on the balcony about quarter past nine - everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely - we then went to bed.
---
Mr Redwood implies singular, but could he be referring to Mr and Mrs Moyes? Does it seem likely their route would place them in the area at the relevant time?
The transcript from that part of Redwood's interview makes it quite clear which holidaymaker he was referring to,
21 40
One of the things that we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night crθche that was operating from the main Ocean Club reception and 8 families had left 11 children in there and one particular family we spoke to us gave us information that was really interesting and exciting. In fact, I would say it was it was a revelation moment when, having discussed with them what hey were doing on the night, they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting.
22 10
AMROLIWALA
The British father had collected his two-year-old daughter from the crθche. He had been walking near the McCanns apartment.
PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN
This is the actual photograph taken by Metropolitan Police Officers of the man dressed in the kind of clothes he wore on holiday. This image was compared to the artists impression [based on Jane Tanners statement].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO the Moyes couple were either minutes too early or minutes too late to witness the conversation between JW & GM or the man crossing the junction at the top of Rua DFG Martins. Had they been interviewed within a few days of the event, perhaps they might have remembered if there were any cars parked in the street or saw people movement.
The Moyes were in the thick of it. I can think of no reason why they wouldn't have spoken to the police if they had anything useful to tell them.
It appears a lot of "sightings" were not checked thoroughly.
It appears a lot of "sightings" were not checked thoroughly.Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance
Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance
The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The move follows the release of 2,000 pages of evidence last week which Portuguese detectives are accused of having failed to fully investigate.
According to sources close to the McCanns, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has ordered officials to examine the 'feasibility' of British or Portuguese detectives looking afresh at all the evidence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
I think some evidence may have been overlooked because of closed minds which could not accept that the theory espoused by the initial investigation had been proved wrong.
Sadie's theory has never been tested ... but in my opinion there is nothing in it that is not plausible ... and it continues to develop as other avenues are suggested.
Exactly what a theory should be ... a fluid work in progress, building on one step of evidence into the next before a conclusion can be reached.
The same can be said of the accidental death scenario and walking out of the apartment.
After all, OG used dogs in Portugal, yet apparently ignored the use of them in 2007 by the PJ.
As too Sadie's theories, who actually believes them ?
Sadie you agree with Kate 8(0(*
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOnnpa0WsAMdgFh.jpg:large)
There's no need to thank me Sadie. I picked holes in your theory to demonstrate it's lack of a factual foundation. As such I consider it fatally flawed. Changing it doesn't add the credibility it still lacks in my opinion.Thanks for your help in honing it.
Thanks for your help in honing it.
The theory is now stronger, because it always niggled me a bit that The Watcher /Getaway Driver was in full view and rather close to anyone coming out through the tapas reception.
Thanks again ?{)(**
To help me further, can you please specify where it still lacks in your opinion
Maybe I can hone it a bit more
I think it is a logical conclusion that there had to be a vehicle involved at some stage to enable Madeleine to vanish so completely in such a short time scale.
What I find illogical is that those who adhere to some very seriously outlandish theories involving anything from clones to refrigeration to coffin invasion and cremation are so resistant to Sadie's theory.
One wonders, is it its straight forward simplicity and the stranger abduction theme which is most certainly a contender to knocking what has become a belief system of parental involvement into the long grass which makes it so abhorrent?
I haven't seen any cogent argument made regarding any aspect of Sadie's theory which starts: "I think that is impossible for the simple reason that ... ", because in my opinion you have thought about workable possibilities in systematic progression which addresses most eventualities.
One can't help thinking that had the initial investigation adopted a similar methodology at the time of Madeleine's disappearance that over ten years down the line there would be no 'mystery' or need of conspiracy theories to justify error.
In my opinion, Sadie's theory is a workable hypothesis which in its simplicity, is thought provoking.
The same can be said of the accidental death scenario and walking out of the apartment.
After all, OG used dogs in Portugal, yet apparently ignored the use of them in 2007 by the PJ.
As too Sadie's theories, who actually believes them ?
Thanks for your help in honing it.
The theory is now stronger, because it always niggled me a bit that The Watcher /Getaway Driver was in full view and rather close to anyone coming out through the tapas reception.
Thanks again ?{)(**
To help me further, can you please specify where it still lacks in your opinion
Maybe I can hone it a bit more
As I keep saying, it lacks any connection to reality. It's fiction from start to finish. You have started with a belief in abduction and invented a cast of characters who might have existed and might have carried out this abduction in a certain way.
If there was no abduction you've wasted all the time you've spent on inventing this story. Likewise if it was an opportunistic abduction. Likewise if it was a botched burglary, murder or an accident.
People say the evidence points to abduction, but I don't agree. I agree with the first investigation which was unable to name the crime committed. A useful theory relies on evidence, not speculation.
So who actually believes this theory along with the other conspiracy theories, bloodlines, Phoenicians, decendents of various historical figures, etc., that Sadie has been typing on for some time ?
After all, they are part of her theories as to why Madeleine disappeared.
Meanwhile, this Watcher, has this person been proven to exist ?
...and I almost forgot, the high level conspiracy claimed by Sadie in one of her theories protecting the 'abductor'.
As I keep saying, it lacks any connection to reality. It's fiction from start to finish. You have started with a belief in abduction and invented a cast of characters who might have existed and might have carried out this abduction in a certain way.
If there was no abduction you've wasted all the time you've spent on inventing this story. Likewise if it was an opportunistic abduction. Likewise if it was a botched burglary, murder or an accident.
People say the evidence points to abduction, but I don't agree. I agree with the first investigation which was unable to name the crime committed. A useful theory relies on evidence, not speculation.
How did they work that out? Were they taking Kate and Gerry's testimony into that calculation?
What nonsense! Bloodlines are not theories. They are very much a fact.
Quite a put down in my neck of the woods dependent on the tone of voice used in delivery is: "Ah kent his faither!"
Bloodlines are interwoven into the fabric of our society; if not, why is it a descendent of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha who is entitled to bear the Royal Coat of Arms and to sit on the throne of Britain but you or I are not?(https://www.britroyals.com/images/arms.jpg)
As I see it, the difficulty you have with Sadie's theory is that there is nothing about it that is impossible. It doesn't matter that you may deride 'bloodlines'. Quite patently there are those who do not ... else no "Vivat Regina!".
We could have been closer to identifying a watcher in the balcony opposite, had the Portuguese police bothered to pick up the ends of the cigarettes which had been smoked there.
In my opinion you cannot retain credibility by dismissing out of hand one "high level conspiracy claimed" while adhering to another "high level conspiracy claimed".
From the paucity of your argument, I think you have a very long way to go if you wish to make a dent in Sadie's theory ... you have failed miserably so far for the reasons I have enumerated in my previous post.
In the interim ... Madeleine McCann remains a missing person. So why has no "useful theory" already addressed that irrefutable fact?
Failed miserably ??
Hardly.
I regard this bloodlines reference to this case as a mere DIVERSION, totally unproven as relevant, and essentially no more than a load of old twaddle as regards how and why Madeleine disappeared.
Can you prove otherwise ?
Sadie and her theories are unproved, A.I.M.H.O. , continuation of this as a viable 'theory' will make this forum a laughing stock.
You raised the diversion in the present discussion and yet again your post illustrates - in my opinion - your total lack of concept about what "theory" actually means and your inability in debate to contest the points raised in Sadie's theory goes some of the way - in my opinion - to proving its viability.
You evidently forget what training I have in scientific disciplines.
I also know the difference between theory and wild speculation fueled by support for the mccanns, to the exclusion of all else.
Theory requires a workable hypothesis, and Sadie's as is yours, is one-dimensional.
The difference between me and you, is that I am prepared to accept different possibilities exist, as to Madeleine's fate.
However, I do know theories require logical thinking and not wild meanderings, driven by support of the McCann's.
I place Sadie's theory inline with the scientists who claimed they developed cold fusion in the 80's.
No one was able to substantiate that claim after repeated tests.
I.M.H.O. , of course.
NOW AGAIN, where has it been proved there was someone watching the McCann's ?
Madeleine is definitely missing. That is a fact. There is not enough evidence to decide why she is missing or where she went. Theories abound, but their usefulness is uncertain.
Operation Grange appear to have investigated planned abduction and opportunist abduction, by gangs and a lone operator. They have done this because people reported suspicious watchers and charity collectors and instances of a lone sex attacker. They have considered burglary gone wrong because there were reports of burglaries in the area. They have dismissed woke and wandered for what I see as a rather tenuous notion that the child wasn't old enough to start a new life. The various hypotheses they have investigated all arise from evidence of some kind, you will notice.
What Operation Grange appear to have neglected is to investigate the involvement of friends and family; the usual starting point in cases of this kind. They appear to believe that this was done by the first investigation, but they may have misunderstood what the conclusions of that investigation were.
I think that Operation Grange have demonstrated that it is evidence which must underpin and suggest theories. Starting with a theory and then hoping that evidence will be found to support it isn't the way to proceed. If there's no evidence that something happened (like the existence of a getaway vehicle) it shouldn't be included.
You are not the only person on the forum to have received scientific training.
Some of us tread scientific journals on a regular basis and are used to assessing evidence.
The fact that I believe the McCanns to be innocent does not mean I have not looked at other possibilities...I have.
Based on the evidence I think the McCanns are innocent and it appears both investigating police forces agree
You have made a gross error...it was the Portuguese who dismissed woke and wandered.....we do not know exactly why but they may well have facts we are not privy to
They said it was unlikely.
Not the same as eliminating that possibility.
No...they said it was HIGHLY unlikely......which makes it highly unlikely
Which family line is being traced back , Gerry or Kate ?
It does not mean impossible.No prof does not mean no one entered....another fact
Now tell me davel, what is going to happen if no proof is found of a third party entering the apartment on may the 3 rd 2007 ?
It does not mean impossible.
Now tell me davel, what is going to happen if no proof is found of a third party entering the apartment on may the 3 rd 2007 ?
You have made a gross error...it was the Portuguese who dismissed woke and wandered.....we do not know exactly why but they may well have facts we are not privy to
There is no proof of an intruder and Redwood destroyed Tanner's attempt to establish one.
Really? A C Rowley;
"In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life"
The fact that woke and wandered has been deemed highly unlikely and in my opinion the parents are not suspects means an intruder is highly likely........
The fact that woke and wandered has been deemed highly unlikely and in my opinion the parents are not suspects means an intruder is highly likely........
None of theories have been proven or disproven.
You support abduction, merely because you support the Mccanns.
I.M.H.O.
The fact that two tracker dogs independently established the exact same route is very significant in my view. The fact that her scent suddenly stopped opposite the entrance to mini reception evidences that something happened to her at that point. Accident or no accident, someone lifted her imo.
The evidence collected by the archiving report does not agree with you
Cite
Definitely not. There was nothing to stop Madeleine getting out despite what some try to claim. The only real tangible evidence is that provided by the GNR tracker dogs which followed her scent around the block and across the road where it mysteriously stopped. In fact, the actions by those that were there the night Maddie disappeared proves they thought she had got out.
When the penny dropped though, self preservation took over and the abductor was born.
I'm on my phone.....a long way from home
The archiving report has been extensively bquoted deeming woke and wandered highly unlikely
We are not sure, but apparently, according to Sadie, mentioned on another thread- MBM was abducted because she had a jewish name, and who else do we know is jewish. Yes Jesus was jewish. See the connection with knights templar?
Do your homework Jassi 8)><( 8)-)))
They used the phrase highly unlikely...not unlikely
That means quite simply it was highly unlikely
They used the phrase highly unlikely...not unlikely
That means quite simply it was highly unlikely
Actually, the Archive Report does not state that at all, it was stated in the final report by Inspector Joγo Carlos:
As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored that would be highly unlikely physically and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
I find that quite incredulous for many reasons, not least the fact that the patio door was unlocked.
This thread has now become a parody of itself.
Highly unlikely => impossible/implausible vis a vis woke and wandered.
Highly unlikely => probable/plausible in Sadie's Theory.
*%87
As you have said many times they may well have information we do not have....the fact is it was clearly stated by those who had most facts
The fact that two tracker dogs independently established the exact same route is very significant in my view. The fact that her scent suddenly stopped opposite the entrance to mini reception evidences that something happened to her at that point. Accident or no accident, someone lifted her from the street imo and that places the blame right back with the parents.
The corroborated efforts by the dogs which visited the scene hours after Madeleine disappeared must not be underestimated. We know that she was barefoot so if she walked out she would have left a very strong trail behind.
You evidently forget what training I have in scientific disciplines.
I also know the difference between theory and wild speculation fueled by support for the mccanns, to the exclusion of all else.
Theory requires a workable hypothesis, and Sadie's as is yours, is one-dimensional.
The difference between me and you, is that I am prepared to accept different possibilities exist, as to Madeleine's fate.
However, I do know theories require logical thinking and not wild meanderings, driven by support of the McCann's.
I place Sadie's theory inline with the scientists who claimed they developed cold fusion in the 80's.
No one was able to substantiate that claim after repeated tests.
I.M.H.O. , of course.
NOW AGAIN, where has it been proved there was someone watching the McCann's ?
P.S. Do you accept the possibility of the accidental death or the walking out scenario as possible ?
Remember neither have been disproved or proved, just like abduction.
Please let me make it clear, i have had no contact with The Mccanns nor SY with this theory. As far as I know, they know nothing of it.
It is what it is, merely a theory, but it works.
It would have been flawless as far as i can see, had it not been for that untimely chat by Gerry and Jez. And, of course, Jane appearing unexpectedly on the scene.
Russell and Janes daughter was unexpectedly poorly and frequent visits (and stays) were necessary. Had the apartment been watched on previous days, when the children had slept niormally with no illness, the watcher would likely have formed a fairly accurate time list of comings and goings.
That time list was blown by unexpected trips by Jane and by Jez happening to appear as Gerry was leaving 5A. They were both out of the vision of The watcher because the balcony was set back about a metre and a half behind a wing of block 6. This blocked his view of the chat.
This exact scenario may well have happened and this theory shows how it could have been done so easily.
If nothing else, it blows all the nonsensical talk, over the years, about "no-one could have done it in the time" sky high. An abduction could easily have happened as illustrated by my mini theory.
It also irons out a few of the worries about what happened such as Gerry insisting that his chat with Jez took place on the other side of the road.
I fully accept that this theory might not be what happened, but it ticks all the boxes.
Unless someone can come up with something that disproves it, it should rernain om the table IMO
AIMHO
You have stated, if I recall correctly, that you have met and stood next to the Mccanns, and Gerry Mccann was taller than you expected.So far nobody has given any pointers to either accidental death or walkling out of the apartment happening. I can understand some people wondering the accidental death thoughts when it was being spreading it around that Keela and Eddie had found evidence of death . But now that has been conclusively found incorrect, there are absolutely no piointers, no evidence and it is time to give uip on thoughts based upon wrong perceptions
As to proof, can you disprove accidental death or the walking out of the apartment scenario ?
As to this 'watcher', what proof do you have that anyone was watching the mccanns ?
It is pure supposition
I.M.H.O. naturally.
Any scent trail could have been laid down at an earlier time and may not relate to Maddie leaving the apartment
The fact remains that even taking the Portuguese dogs into account the Portuguese police have all but rejected woke and wandered...that has to be highly significant and cannot be ignored
Sadie - you have a great theory but what would happen if the guys doing the work preparing to take Madeleine were surprised themselves by Madeleine making her own way out of the apartment and running between block 4 and 5 then up the alleyway turning toward the Ocean Club once she was on the footpath again. Would they be prepared for that?According to my theories:
This is the path the tracker dogs traced.
So far nobody has given any pointers to either accidental death or walkling out of the apartment happening. I can understand some people wondering the accidental death thoughts when it was being spreading it around that Keela and Eddie had found evidence of death . But now that has been conclusively found incorrect, there are absolutely no piointers, no evidence and it is time to give uip on thoughts based upon wrong perceptions
Give me some sound pointers and I will look again
As to the watchers, I cannot believe that you have asked the question.
We have several different people who have come forward to state that they saw a man watching the Mccann apartment. Tasmin Silence twice saw him, and three other people also saw him. It is all recorded on youtube video.
With this ancient computer I cannot access videos atm, but it was the same video as the one where Jane Tanner disagrees with Gerry over the place that he and Jez were chatting .... and she ends up with tears coursing down her face as she recalls that maybe she could have prevented the alleged abduction of Madeleine had she realised what was going on before her eyes. I think the video is called "Cutting Edge" video
So give me some sound pointers, and I will look again.
Many people go out for a quiet smoke when on holiday Sadie so someone standing outside an apartment staring aimlessly into the night sky is nothing unusual. The cigarette butts found outside the apartments are testament to this happening regularly and does not necessarily indicate something sinister.Yep, I fully accept what you say, John
Yep, I fully accept what you say, John
But, they also could be one of the main clues as to what happened, with a watcher on that balcony directing operations .... maybe by flicking his lighter on and off .... who knows?
Hidden in plain sight, a smoker using a lighter to signal ?>)()< Clever!
Many people go out for a quiet smoke when on holiday Sadie so someone standing outside an apartment staring aimlessly into the night sky is nothing unusual. The cigarette butts found outside the apartments are testament to this happening regularly and does not necessarily indicate something sinister.
Your theory is indeed interesting but it is simply that, a theory. I haven't seen any evidence which could in any way lend support to it as being more than just that.
As for Jane Tanner's tears. She sees a man carrying a young girl and 45 minutes later is alerted to Madeleine's disappearance just yards away but chooses not to tell anyone. Her excuse being that she didn't want to alarm Madeleine's parents, a bit weird don't you think?
Firstly, Madeleine normally wore shoes so any earlier scent trail would be very weak. Secondly, had the dogs actually followed an old scent trail then the trail would not have ended outside mini reception.
Inspector Joao Carlos did admittedly state in his final report that it was unlikely that Madeleine left the apartment of her own volition but then he could be completely wrong.
Please let me make it clear, i have had no contact with The Mccanns nor SY with this theory. As far as I know, they know nothing of it.
It is what it is, merely a theory, but it works.
It would have been flawless as far as i can see, had it not been for that untimely chat by Gerry and Jez. And, of course, Jane appearing unexpectedly on the scene.
Russell and Janes daughter was unexpectedly poorly and frequent visits (and stays) were necessary. Had the apartment been watched on previous days, when the children had slept niormally with no illness, the watcher would likely have formed a fairly accurate time list of comings and goings.
That time list was blown by unexpected trips by Jane and by Jez happening to appear as Gerry was leaving 5A. They were both out of the vision of The watcher because the balcony was set back about a metre and a half behind a wing of block 6. This blocked his view of the chat.
This exact scenario may well have happened and this theory shows how it could have been done so easily.
If nothing else, it blows all the nonsensical talk, over the years, about "no-one could have done it in the time" sky high. An abduction could easily have happened as illustrated by my mini theory.
It also irons out a few of the worries about what happened such as Gerry insisting that his chat with Jez took place on the other side of the road.
I fully accept that this theory might not be what happened, but it ticks all the boxes.
Unless someone can come up with something that disproves it, it should rernain om the table IMO
AIMHO
This thread has now become a parody of itself.
Highly unlikely => impossible/implausible vis a vis woke and wandered.
Highly unlikely => probable/plausible in Sadie's Theory.
*%87
Million to one chances happen nine time out of ten.except when you want to win the Lotto.
So far nobody has given any pointers to either accidental death or walkling out of the apartment happening. I can understand some people wondering the accidental death thoughts when it was being spreading it around that Keela and Eddie had found evidence of death . But now that has been conclusively found incorrect, there are absolutely no piointers, no evidence and it is time to give uip on thoughts based upon wrong perceptions
Give me some sound pointers and I will look again
As to the watchers, I cannot believe that you have asked the question.
We have several different people who have come forward to state that they saw a man watching the Mccann apartment. Tasmin Silence twice saw him, and three other people also saw him. It is all recorded on youtube video.
With this ancient computer I cannot access videos atm, but it was the same video as the one where Jane Tanner disagrees with Gerry over the place that he and Jez were chatting .... and she ends up with tears coursing down her face as she recalls that maybe she could have prevented the alleged abduction of Madeleine had she realised what was going on before her eyes. I think the video is called "Cutting Edge" video
So give me some sound pointers, and I will look again.
I have addressed the 'watcher' issue before.
Merely looking at a building does not mean it was under surveillance. There were several apartments there, so what is this fixation as if there was only one.
Casual observation of people will reveal, remarkably enough, that people do look at buildings.
It doesn't mean they are burglars, kidnappers or paedophiles.
If you think that a 'watcher' would be acceptable evidence to take to court, then I think you need to think again.
A.I.M.H.O.
Not sure it is even evidence, merely a person's perception and interpretation of an event.
You have no evidence of a watcher. Smithman exists and that is evidence. You have no evidence only make-believe.
Unfortunately for some, an unidentified Smithman will always be the thorn in the side of those who don't believe an abduction occurred.
Not really.
I'd really like you to elaborate on that answer but I predict you won't.
Perhaps you could explain your 'thorn in the side' comment?
In the absence of conclusive evidence to implicate anyone else in Madeleine's disappearance, the non-identification of Smithman + female child will always be there as a defence tool.
In the absence of conclusive evidence to implicate anyone else in Madeleine's disappearance, the non-identification of Smithman + female child will always be there as a defence tool.
I notice the watchers are dismissed as merely people looking at buildings.
Don't you think it is a bit of a coincidence that, firstly, there were men collecting for a bogus charity, one person said he was more interested in looking at her children than collecting money. Then you have the witnesses who say there was a man standing staring at 5a, not once but twice [didn't he stare at it enough the first time?]
Then Madeleine disappears and these men are not seen again.
Of course it supports my theory and thoughts.
This scenario is exactly what you wanted, as part of your support of the mccanns.
I have addressed the 'watcher' issue before.
Merely looking at a building does not mean it was under surveillance. There were several apartments there, so what is this fixation as if there was only one.
Casual observation of people will reveal, remarkably enough, that people do look at buildings.
It doesn't mean they are burglars, kidnappers or paedophiles.
If you think that a 'watcher' would be acceptable evidence to take to court, then I think you need to think again.
A.I.M.H.O.
Of course it supports my theory and thoughts.
It illustrates how an abduction could have been successfully achieved ... and as it works, maybe it was used. I do not claim that it definitely was used.
However it illustrates that there was the means and time to achieve an abduction successfully, which is somthing that your side, the Skeptics, has claimed was not possible.
Stephen, I cannot understand how you can blatently state that the building was not being watched.
FGS Tasmin Silence actually saw the same man twice and the once he was actually leaning on 5A wall staring at the property. She particularly noticed both times cos her Gran used to live there. Three other people noticed the staring as well.
Sorry to have to say this, stephen, but in my opinion I dont think any police officer worth his salt would take these people staring so flippantly.
It hasn't been determined that they were anything more than that and they don't seem high on SY's 'must interview' list, so likely of no significance at all.
Thank god for our Police Force who didn't ignore the witnesses who saw these people.
If it was left to you and others no suspects would be sought, lingering outside an apartment where not long afterwards a child disappears. Staring at the apartment. The witnesses thought they looked suspicious or they wouldn't have mentioned them.
Thank god for our Police Force who didn't ignore the witnesses who saw these people.
If it was left to you and others no suspects would be sought, lingering outside an apartment where not long afterwards a child disappears. Staring at the apartment. The witnesses thought they looked suspicious or they wouldn't have mentioned them.
This was dealt with when OG carried out the review. Result zilch.
I have not taken a roll call so how many dodgy geezers were there in this kidnap gang?
You mean in their opinion, people were watching the apartment block ?
Note the term, apartment block.
A block made up of many different apartments some of which were occupied some which were not ... but there was only one from which a child vanished without trace.
...and how would someone outside differentiate between occupied and unoccupied accommodation, when during the daytime, the occupants might not have been there ?
"One morning, I saw Gerry and his wife Kate on their balcony, chatting to their friends on the path below. Privately I was glad we didn't get their apartment. It was on a corner by the road and people could see in. They were exposed."
Bridget O'Donnell
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
A block made up of many different apartments some of which were occupied some which were not ... but there was only one from which a child vanished without trace.
In my experience it pays to understand the difference between correlation and causation.
In my experience it pays to understand the difference between correlation and causation.
Many people go out for a quiet smoke when on holiday Sadie so someone standing outside an apartment staring aimlessly into the night sky is nothing unusual. The cigarette butts found outside the apartments are testament to this happening regularly and does not necessarily indicate something sinister.
Your theory is indeed interesting but it is simply that, a theory. I haven't seen any evidence which could in any way lend support to it as being more than just that.
As for Jane Tanner's tears. She sees a man carrying a young girl and 45 minutes later is alerted to Madeleine's disappearance just yards away but chooses not to tell anyone. Her excuse being that she didn't want to alarm Madeleine's parents, a bit weird don't you think?
Unfortunately for some, an unidentified Smithman will always be the thorn in the side of those who don't believe an abduction occurred.
It hasn't been determined that they were anything more than that and they don't seem high on SY's 'must interview' list, so likely of no significance at all.So you know who was high on SY's must interview list, do you ?
You mean in their opinion, people were watching the apartment block ?When a man who has been spotted before staring in the direction of 5A then is seen actually seen leaning on that apartments wall staring at it, then he is not staring at the apartment block in general.
Note the term, apartment block.
This was dealt with when OG carried out the review. Result zilch.Citation for that please jassi.
How many other people did the same ?
Any idea ?
How many people were seen on the corner ?
People do stare at buildings and do hang outside buildings.
That does not mean they are burglars, kidnappers and/or paedophiles.
People stare at buildings of architectual merit ... or exceptionally pretty buildings, but not soley at an apartment that was ordinary, similar to others
... unless there is a special reason.
The apartment was at the end of the street. If you were waiting for a lift there it's absolutely understandable that you may have a bit of a nosey in someone else's garden or a look up at their apartment. I would.
Oh would you?
It wasn't you that visited our garden to peer over the high garden wall at it and watch my hubby, was it ?
Nah it wasn't you. I know who it was.
Was someone planning on abducting your husband too ? 8(0(*@)(++(*
People stare at buildings of architectual merit ... or exceptionally pretty buildings, but not soley at an apartment that was ordinary, similar to others
... unless there is a special reason.
That is your opinion Sadie.
People can hang around buildings or a street for a variety of reasons. It doesn't mean they are keeping it under surveillance.
After all, why would someone risk exposure to being observed ?
It seems to me and others, you are trying to fix hearsay to fit your theory.
it really is quite simple...people hang around buildings and generally are of no interest...however is it is suspected a crime has been committed then the persons would be of interest
It has not been proven even if a crime occurred.
How would the onlookers know people were staring at an individual apartment, after reporting after an event ?
Why not other apartments ?
Wishful thinking after reading headlines ?
The power of imagination ?
Plenty of opinions, b....r all facts.
Do you believe Sadie's theories as well ?
note I said "suspected crime"...anyone in the vicinity at the suspected time of the suspected crime would be of interest. this thread is about abduction...I certainly believe abduction is almost certainly what happenned to Maddie and it appears both investigating police forces believe so too
If you are saying I'm wrong, provide CITES.
....and while we are in this area, can you say there is no evidence to show either of the other two scenarios in this case ?
It is on record that the initial investigators misunderstood the canine and DNA evidence
I don't have to provide cites, the police showed the man in a reconstruction. These men have not been found they haven't been seen since.
Now YOU show cites showing they have nothing to do with the investigation.
Where has the investigation shown third party has anything to with Madeleine's disappearance Lace ?
Here's a thought or two.
Some clearly believe that Madeleine was taken by someone in a position of power, for some reason really undefined.
Now if this person or those connected wield so much power, why would they allow an investigation which could lead the way to the 'perpetrator' ?
Only asking.
...and how do you that the person was watching 5a or any building for nefarious purposes ?
Have you got a name of the watcher? You don't have to reveal the name but you can provide evidence on how you arrived at the name? Have you got the colour of the getaway car?No, of course I haven't. sadies theory is just that ... a theory. If I had names then it wouldn't be theory, would it?
hAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT gERRY MAY HAVE GONE TO THE FRONT DOOR WHEN/if he considered himself being observed?
If there was a watcher, then this person could easily let the man in 5a know that Gerry was on his way, and so the person in 5a could slip out through the front door until Gerry had gone.8((()*/
If there was a watcher, then this person could easily let the man in 5a know that Gerry was on his way, and so the person in 5a could slip out through the front door until Gerry had gone.But he went to the front door!
But he went to the front door!Do we KNOW that Gerry went to the front door? I dont recall seeing it in his statements
If there was a watcher, then this person could easily let the man in 5a know that Gerry was on his way, and so the person in 5a could slip out through the front door until Gerry had gone.
Do we KNOW that Gerry went to the front door? I dont recall seeing it in his statementsIn his 04 May statement.
Do we KNOW that Gerry went to the front door? I dont recall seeing it in his statements
In his 04 May statement.
So this person presumably went into 5A pretty much immediately after Matthew's listening check. According to Sadie it would take one to two minutes to carry out an abduction, so why was he still in there when Gerry arrived? Why had he not raised the shutters by then? Also according to Sadie the watcher scarpered to the getaway car immediately after giving the signal to go in, so he wouldn't have seen Gerry coming. Finally, why would they go in in daylight?
Do we KNOW that Gerry went to the front door? I dont recall seeing it in his statements
I think the man entered after Gerry's check.
Then who moved the door?
If there was a watcher, then this person could easily let the man in 5a know that Gerry was on his way, and so the person in 5a could slip out through the front door until Gerry had gone.
Ah yes, I see what you mean, then maybe he did enter before Gerry's check, but was tipped off that Gerry was on his way, nipped back out through the front door and waited until Gerry had left.
Or maybe not - Matt was outside the bedroom window only minutes before Gerry left to check.
There wasn't an open window when Gerry arrived or when Matt returned 30 minutes later. A later open window does not connect to the first door moves so try again.
Ah yes, I see what you mean, then maybe he did enter before Gerry's check, but was tipped off that Gerry was on his way, nipped back out through the front door and waited until Gerry had left.
The abductor could have been in 5a when Matthew did his listening check.
No wonder he/she opened the window!! There had to be an exit in case the person was trapped inside the bedroom.
So now he went in before 9 pm, in daylight? How did he know Matthew was listening at the window? The watcher has gone now, remember. They would both have got a surprise if he'd opened the shutters at that moment, wouldn't they? Is there just one man involved now because where's his mate, the one who didn't go in? Matthew didn't see him either.
Do you honestly think they would show themselves? A man managed to hide in the bushes by the front door when a previous nanny had been in 5a.
Do you honestly think they would show themselves? A man managed to hide in the bushes by the front door when a previous nanny had been in 5a.
So this person presumably went into 5A pretty much immediately after Matthew's listening check. According to Sadie it would take one to two minutes to carry out an abduction, so why was he still in there when Gerry arrived? Why had he not raised the shutters by then? Also according to Sadie the watcher scarpered to the getaway car immediately after giving the signal to go in, so he wouldn't have seen Gerry coming. Finally, why would they go in in daylight?
In his 04 May statement.8((()*/
Do you honestly think they would show themselves? A man managed to hide in the bushes by the front door when a previous nanny had been in 5a.
Really? He said he did in his first statement. There is more evidence that Gerry used the front door than there is that anyone was watching the apartment in my opinion.Yep, I do remember that but I thought that Rob was saying that once inside (via the patio door) Gerry went to the front door .... and i couldn't remember that
Seems that you have forgotten my later post in response to yours, where I suggested alternatively that he might have waited for a signal from Tannerman that all was going well and it was time to go and fetch the getaway vehicle.
Two possibilities mentioned but seems you forgot or, maybe, ignored the later one?
Can post it again assuming that it wasn't deleted, if you wish
How can you say the window wasn't open when Matt did his check 30 minutes later?
Matt says this in his statement -
Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.
The window could have been open.
Yep, I do remember that but I thought that Rob was saying that once inside (via the patio door) Gerry went to the front door .... and i couldn't remember thatWould Gerry go to the patio door when it wasn't fully dark just in case someone could then notice the door was unlocked? I think he was aware he might have been under observation.
Yep, I do remember that but I thought that Rob was saying that once inside (via the patio door) Gerry went to the front door .... and i couldn't remember that
At about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant." At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. He entered the bedroom, he observed the twins and he did not even notice whether Madeleine was there"That's my point I'm suggesting he did that because he was worried people might see him go through the unlocked patio door. What was your reasoning?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Have you worked out the reason for the big contradiction yet? How was he at the front using his key when the back was always unlocked. Put your thinking cap on. This is important to the case and my theory answers it.
That's my point I'm suggesting he did that because he was worried people might see him go through the unlocked patio door. What was your reasoning?
Would Gerry go to the patio door when it wasn't fully dark just in case someone could then notice the door was unlocked? I think he was aware he might have been under observation.
If that's true his disregard for the safety of his children beggars belief.
If that's true his disregard for the safety of his children beggars belief.I think he was aware he might have been under POTENTIAL observation. He might not be aware of actual observation.
Sadie's watcher has gone, so who tipped him off?
Abductors are renowned for being elusive. Somehow I don't think they would be standing about puffing a fag outside a prospective victim's habitat just waiting to pounce.?{)(**
Or maybe not - Matt was outside the bedroom window only minutes before Gerry left to check.After a check would normally be the best time to go in, doncha think?
Okay, so how long was he expected to wait, and how was the OK signal given?IMO it could have been given by Tannerman who stayed outside. Once he saw that Madeleine was sedated or scooped up by the lifter, I guess. Signaling could have been by a cigarette lighter flicked on, a narriow beam torch, a fine laser beam (I think). I wasn't there so I cant tell you which, but any would work
That was the first time in the flat for Matt. There were slats open that explains the streetlight next to the car park entrance shining in.The streetlight at the car park entrance had its lamp deeply within the head of one of the trees, so there wouldn't be much light from there IMO
The outside blinds were closed with only two or three slats open. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Matt didn't see curtains moving or feel any draught so no window was open at 9:30. No abductor before 9:30 explains the open window.
"I was there to check, erm, no, no funny sort of smells, no sort of funny draughts, no sort of funny sort of noises, no, erm, nothing that I can think of for that. I mean, it was a complete just a shock out of the blue when, you know, I'd been in and then suddenly somebody's saying Madeleine's missing, there was nothing that made me think, oh'."
078 'The curtains were drawn and weren't blowing around''
Reply 'Yeah'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Would Gerry go to the patio door when it wasn't fully dark just in case someone could then notice the door was unlocked? I think he was aware he might have been under observation.
*snipped*..........At about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
After a check would normally be the best time to go in, doncha think?
How would he be awate of that?It would be like being cautious.
ETA. I think that you have already, more or less, answered that. Soz
"Respective" key means that more than one person had a key. Do you think that Gerry would have said that, given the family were only allocated one key?
IMO it could have been given by Tannerman who stayed outside. Once he saw that Madeleine was sedated or scooped up by the lifter, I guess. Signaling could have been by a cigarette lighter flicked on, a narriow beam torch, a fine laser beam (I think). I wasn't there so I cant tell you which, but any would work
Have you got any ideas?
This is getting confusing now because the goalposts keep moving.Good thinking but at each step I think you need to list all the options.. Like you are wrong just to think because the door is half open someone has been in there. That is not the only option.
If someone moved the door, as Gerry testifies, someone was in the apartment before he arrived at 9.05.
On 4th there is no mention of the half open bedroom door; he entered by the front door, looked at the kids, went to the WC and left.
On 10th May he enters by the patio door and now he notices the half open bedroom door. That's why he visually checked that all three children were there. Goes to the WC and leaves.
If Gerry went in by the front door, he would have caught them in the act.
If he used the patio door the watcher would have seen him only as he approached the gate.
If they were sent in immediately after Matthew's listening check, why are they still there?
Good thinking but at each step I think you need to list all the options.. Like you are wrong just to think because the door is half open someone has been in there. That is not the only option.
So who moved that door three times? Before 9.05, then again before 9.30, then again before 10pm.I think at each point that could be:
It's a key to the truth in this case. They were adamant about the changing position of the door.
Only Gerry could be adamant as Matt wouldn't know if it had altered and neither would Kate.It seems that Kate is the only one really concerned about the door position.
It's a key to the truth in this case. They were adamant about the changing position of the door.
That does not stray too far from the topic concerning Sadie's theory although the fact of the belief in what witnesses have actually said in their statements is nothing if not heartening.
Sadie's theory allows for entry to the apartment and the moving door would appear to substantiate that. The culmination of the movements was the sudden gust from the open window which caused the door to slam on Kate.
But we only know of the prior movements by collating the statements ... so where did it go from there?
The GNR dogs gave indications which may have tied in with Sadie's theory with a strong scent leading to where a vehicle was parked ... so where did it go from there?
There are numerous accounts of burglars leaving DNA on cigarette ends.
Cigarette butt left at burglary scene leads to arrest of Pawcatuck man
http://www.theday.com/article/20170913/NWS04/170919736
DNA on cigarette butt caught workshop burglar
http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/15592634.DNA_on_cigarette_butt_caught_workshop_burglar/
Burglar caught with DNA from discarded cigarette butt
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/blackburndarwenhyndburnribble/9624170.Burglar_caught_with_DNA_from_discarded_cigarette_butt/
Boynton police catch alleged burglar from DNA left on cigarette butt
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-06-18/news/fl-boynton-beach-cigarette-butt-20140618_1_dna-crime-scene-burglar
Sheffield burglar snared by DNA covered cigarette butt left at scene
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/picture-sheffield-burglar-snared-by-dna-covered-cigarette-butt-left-at-scene-1-8545759
Sadie's theory includes the McCann apartment being watched; one vantage point she identified was the balcony in apartment block six where cigarette ends were found.
Where did that go? ... in this case we do know, they went to the bin.
As far as I would imagine, evidence doesn't come in neatly isolated packages such as "Headline: a badly told story" Diario of the Noticias:the day after the event.
It comes from carefully collating and following the evidence wherever it may lead. It didn't hang around the environs of the McCann apartment or perhaps even Luz'
In my opinion Sadie's theory of rapid transfer to a vehicle sounds very likely.
I think at each point that could be:
1. left at the wrong position by the last person who looked into the kids room.
2. One of the children getting up.
3. Another person
so is that 9 different combinations of events possible? 3 x 3 = 9 (too many combinations for the finding at at Kate's check is known).
That was the first time in the flat for Matt. There were slats open that explains the streetlight next to the car park entrance shining in.
The outside blinds were closed with only two or three slats open. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Matt didn't see curtains moving or feel any draught so no window was open at 9:30. No abductor before 9:30 explains the open window.
"I was there to check, erm, no, no funny sort of smells, no sort of funny draughts, no sort of funny sort of noises, no, erm, nothing that I can think of for that. I mean, it was a complete just a shock out of the blue when, you know, I'd been in and then suddenly somebody's saying Madeleine's missing, there was nothing that made me think, oh'."
078 'The curtains were drawn and weren't blowing around''
Reply 'Yeah'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
So there were no gusts of wind when Matthew did his check, all that means is that the wind hadn't picked up then nothing more, he did a quick glance in and was gone. Though he did say the room was lighter he thought it was the moon. I beleive the blind and window were open when he did his check.I don't believe any of that.
Did Matt move the door/leave it ajar again during his check or did he leave it as he found it - open over 45° - meaning there were only 2 door moves?
So there were no gusts of wind when Matthew did his check, all that means is that the wind hadn't picked up then nothing more, he did a quick glance in and was gone. Though he did say the room was lighter he thought it was the moon. I beleive the blind and window were open when he did his check.
IMO. no proof whatsoever that that window was ever open or that the shutters had been tampered with at all.
IMO, no proof whatsoever that that window was ever open or that the shutters had been tampered with at all.
There is no proof that the shutters were ever open or were tampered with by anyone else. It's in the files, no one other than I think 1 member of staff allege they saw it open and it was shut when the police arrived. So it was the McCanns themselves if they ever saw it open in the first place that tampered with the crimescene. Alternatively they opened and shut it themselves, allowing one person to see it open. imo.
Kate said they were open...she isn't a suspect so its reasonable to believe her
Why should we believe her ?Why should we not believe her..
Why should we not believe her..
NO VERIFICATION of the windows open and shutters disturbed before 10 pm.We have verification from Kate
8((()*/
We have verification from Kate
..
You can't verify yourself.
Surely it's not a question of anyone lying, more that of requiring independent verification before accept what is said.
Surely it's not a question of anyone lying, more that of requiring independent verification before accept what is said.
This is just one location where questions can be posed, but not the only one.
Doesn't matter at all....it's what the official investigations think that's important and in both Kate is not a suspect so it follows she is believed
Which have failed to solve the case.
Mmm.
Stranger abductions are notoriously difficult to solve...so no surprise there
If the McCanns had been involved the case would have been solved years ago imo
Irrelevant.
Madeleine disappeared, cause undetermined.
Some police say abduction, others have said not abduction.
The police do not determine guilt, that is in the court system, as is a judgement of the type of crime any person is charged with.
Of course, you then have to find sufficient evidence to bring charges....
So are any charges in the offing ?
Yet nobody has been arrested and there is no forensic evidence of a third person in the apartment, on the night in question.Was that a typo Stephen? Did you really write "Police, by the way, do not determine a crime, and while some say abduction, others have said otherwise."?
Police, by the way, do not determine a crime, and while some say abduction, others have said otherwise.
Was that a typo Stephen? Did you really write "Police, by the way, do not determine a crime, and while some say abduction, others have said otherwise."?
Police may believe they know what crime has occurred, it does not mean they always get it right.
Rowley said they solved 90 % of their crimes...that sounds quite good to me...I think SY are more reliable than a relative handful of anonymous armchair detectives on the net
Was that a typo Stephen? Did you really write "Police, by the way, do not determine a crime, and while some say abduction, others have said otherwise."?
Perhaps we can have the proof of that and the stats to back it up.
They certainly haven't been successful in this case.
How many years have been spent on this, and how much money ?
Just asking.
Remembering of course, that police funding has been reduced, along with police numbers, so that some crimes are even being investigated.
'Police 'writing off crimes' because they are so overstretched, damning report reveals'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-force-hmic-watchdog-overstretched-public-risk-national-crisis-government-cuts-a7606836.html
If you read my post again you will see I am quoting Rowley.........that is what he said...if you dont beleive he is telling the truth thats up to you
So are you saying that police solve 90% of all crimes, or are you focused on one area, and if so so, what ?
Rowley said they solved 90 % of their crimes...that sounds quite good to me...I think SY are more reliable than a relative handful of anonymous armchair detectives on the net
There were 704,000 crimes committed in the capital last year but the Metropolitan Police managed to bring just 169,000 of these or 24% to a successful conclusion. (2013/4)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shocking-figures-show-police-solved-4729609
Their murder rate is good, but OG isn't investigating a murder, is it?
Our detection rate for murder is exceptional - solving around 95 of every 100 murders - a rate other capital cities look at with envy.
http://news.met.police.uk/news/detecting-and-preventing-murder-147405
e.g.
' Shocking figures show police solved just 29% of all crime in England and Wales last year
London's force boasted the worst record with a meagre 24% of crimes being solved in the capital during 2013/14 '
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shocking-figures-show-police-solved-4729609
Rowley is quoting figures for serious crimes...this is a serious crime
Rowley is quoting figures for serious crimes...this is a serious crime
It has not been determined in law if a crime has occurred.
That is in the jurisdiction of the court system, not Rowley.
You seem to be the only poster who hasn't provided a cite. 8**8:/:
Im quoting Rowley...I have more faith in what he says than anonymous armchair detectives...
You have been provided with cited figures, not opinions.
ive just given a cite by Rowley
...and what of the statistic base for those figures ?
Where is that ?
are you suggesting Rowley is not telling the truth
Given the data provided by alice and Rowley there can be no doubt that SY have an excellent record re serious crime..imo
The figures for solving crime 2013/14 have been provided in previous posts as an example, including the lower rate of solving in London.
Are you calling them lies ?
They haven't solved this case, note the word cae.
It has not been determined, in court, if a crime has occurred.
Rowley says abduction....
Merely because Rowley says abduction, doesn't mean it was an abduction.
Even Rowley only believes it's abduction, he doesn't know
Exactly.
Merely because Rowley says abduction, doesn't mean it was an abduction.It is just another piece in the jig saw to show abduction is way ahead the most probable...imo
It is just another piece in the jig saw to show abduction is way ahead the most probable...imo
That is an opinion.
The fact is, the case remains unsolved.
Given the data provided by alice and Rowley there can be no doubt that SY have an excellent record re serious crime..imo
I posted a link showing an overall detection rate of 24% by The MPS for 2010/2011 and a link that said the murder detection rate was 95%. Only drugs offences and murder had a clean up rate exceeding 65%.
65<90.
Maybe Mr Rowley was not completely on top of his brief.
I would say he was
Of course you would.
But sure as hell he was not completely familiar with the detection rates.
His version is at variance with the official figures released by his own organisation..... *%87
no they are not...his figure for serious crime is similar to homicide..you are promoting your opinion as fact..it isnt
So let's get a few things straight.
Are you implying this case is homicide ?
Second, what are the statistical figures in regards solving this type of case ?
if you read my posts you will see I have not mentioned homicide and neither did Rowley...according to Rowley Sy have a 90 % success rate with serious crime...Rowly believes ...based on the evidence according to Redwood that Maddie was abducted...that would be classed as a serious crime
There is no forensic evidence to show anyone else in the apartment, other than those known.
As to abduction, THAT IS AN OPINION, NOT A FACT.
By the way, what are these serious crimes ?
Bear in mind, real figures have been quoted from source.
It is the opinion of rowley who is leading the investigation with a police force that he claims has a 90 % success rate with serious crimes.....as a professional he may well be referring to the defn laid down in the 2007 serious crime act...the figures quote are in line with those quoted by Rowley...the 24 % relates to all crime not serious crime...
It is the opinion of rowley who is leading the investigation with a police force that he claims has a 90 % success rate with serious crimes.....as a professional he may well be referring to the defn laid down in the 2007 serious crime act...the figures quote are in line with those quoted by Rowley...the 24 % relates to all crime not serious crime... I dont see how you can imply disruption when just about every post of yours is asking questions taht presumably you are looking to be answerred
Now be concise.
What serious crimes are you referring to ?
bearing in mind, this case hasn't resulted in any charges, and abduction is a theory, just like the other two, and unproven.
By the way, what is SY 's success rate with l\possible abduction cases and what is Rowley's experience in this regard ?
CITES ARE REQUIRED.
?
Ive given two cites....Rowley says 90% success rate with serious crime
serious crime is defined in the 2007 serious crime act...
as you disagree with Rowley and question his experience......what is your experience in the detection of serious crime
In my opinion ... The window was not open when he did his check as he explained to the police - no fluttering curtains, no sounds, no draughts - he reckons he could hear twins breathing it was so quiet but not notice a fully open window with cold wind haha - he was in there for a few minutes looking at books by the light in the living room. You have no evidence of it being open before Matt's check. Russell and Jane went through the car park after Matt's check and didn't notice a unmissable raised shutters and open window from one of the children's bedroom. The twins didn't wake with an open window for 30 minutes. No evidence leads to an open window before Matt's check. In my opinion ... The only person that connected to an open window before Matt's check was Tannerman who McCann supporters love to blame as the abductor.
Listen Up! SY has found Tannerman. He is history!
Caveat added
If Matt could see the twins breathing he would have to go right up to the cots, therefore passing Madeleine's alleged bed, so he couldn't have missed her if he was ever in the room at all imo.
Not necessarily, he could see the rise and fall of their breathing from the doorway IMO, they were found with covers off them.
Not necessarily, he could see the rise and fall of their breathing from the doorway IMO, they were found with covers off them.
Matt didn't say he could HEAR the twins breathing, he said he could see them breathing, now how come it was light enough for him to see that the twins were breathing?
He also says this - Reply 'The rest is just sort vague impressions of, erm, of the colour of the curtains, I couldn't tell what particular pattern, but I just remember green and yellow with that. And there may have been a duvet on the back bed behind the two cots. But nothing else specific'.
GREEN AND YELLOW, yet the duvet was blue, the curtains were blue, so how come he remembers green and yellow, as Misty said way back 'the street light was shining on the curtains'as the blind was up IMO turning the curtains green and yellow.
Found by whom? Where were the covers? Had the twins been put down without bedclothes?
Has he got x-ray eyes? Even with the door fully open I defy anyone to see into the brown cot, let alone seeing the occupant breathing.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_14.jpg)
Of course I could give you a reason, but what would be the point - it would be removed almost straight away
Of course I could give you a reason, but what would be the point - it would be removed almost straight away
It is what Matt says in his statement, can you give a reason as to why he would lie to the police?
I would be interested to know why you think he would lie about the twins breathing. Especially as they obviously were.
I'm sure you would but you would then say I'm accusing Matt of not telling the truth and delete me, so I can't.
OK, lets see how long you allow this to stand.
I consider Matt was economical with the truth.
Yes, he made the visit, as Russell says he left the table with him.
However I believe he went no further than the lounge, possible no further than the door way, where he listened for any noise, heard nothing, and left.
This is perfectly in accord with his earlier effort of checking.
Now this would have been perfectly OK if Madeleine had not disappeared, as no one would have been the wiser.
As Madeleine did disappear, he didn't want to admit he only listened at the patio doorway, so embellished things to make it sound better. He could claim he did a visual check of the twins because they hadn't disappeared but was understandably unwilling to say the same for Madeleine.
All my own opinion, a theory you might say.
OK, lets see how long you allow this to stand.Well if I understood you correctly he has no way from that position in the lounge to assess whether the shutters are up or down.
I consider Matt was economical with the truth.
Yes, he made the visit, as Russell says he left the table with him.
However I believe he went no further than the lounge, possible no further than the door way, where he listened for any noise, heard nothing, and left.
This is perfectly in accord with his earlier effort of checking.
Now this would have been perfectly OK if Madeleine had not disappeared, as no one would have been the wiser.
As Madeleine did disappear, he didn't want to admit he only listened at the patio doorway, so embellished things to make it sound better. He could claim he did a visual check of the twins because they hadn't disappeared but was understandably unwilling to say the same for Madeleine.
All my own opinion, a theory you might say.
Well if I understood you correctly he has no way from that position in the lounge to assess whether the shutters are up or down.
Quite, which could explain his uncertainty & unwillingness to actually commit himself one way or the other
Quite, which could explain his uncertainty & unwillingness to actually commit himself one way or the otherTo have an opinion whether uncertain or not, should not have been attempted, on matters he had not made an observation on. I'm sure that would be part of his medical training.
To have an opinion whether uncertain or not, should not have been attempted, on matters he had not made an observation on. I'm sure that would be part of his medical training.
He's very attached to certain words which make him sound unsure.But the times he does he sort of gets the correct observation, well sort of anyway.
it's all based around a T-junction essentially. So, erm, the apartment blocks, erm, runs along parallel to this bit and you go down the T-junction which goes down a hill about, oh, the distance now in memory must be, erm, sort of thirty yards, thirty or forty yards, and there's an entrance through a sort of a walled enclosure into the Tapas and sort of pool area and within that there's sort of like sun loungers,
One can only hope that his speech is more coherent when he's doing the day jobMy sentence wasn't that much better when I sort of tried to read it again.
All he needed to say was 'I did not notice' Clear and unambiguous . No prevaricationThe case may by now be solved if he had been so precise.
I think the Rothley briefing precluded that. Confusion is good @)(++(*Just think of the countless hours of police time wasted trying to decipher David's, Matt's and Russell's rogatory statements.
When they ALL sat down at the table to order would be the best time to do it (everyone is accounted for and nobody should be leaving at that time so that's when you make your move). Matt checked then Gerry checked then Jane checked. I don't believe an abduction would happen with 3 checks within 10 minutes so after a check was not the best time to do it on that constant back and forth night.
p.s. IMO when they were all sat down at the table is when the move was made to remove Madeleine from apartment 5A.
This is getting confusing now because the goalposts keep moving.
If someone moved the door, as Gerry testifies, someone was in the apartment before he arrived at 9.05.
On 4th there is no mention of the half open bedroom door; he entered by the front door, looked at the kids, went to the WC and left.
On 10th May he enters by the patio door and now he notices the half open bedroom door. That's why he visually checked that all three children were there. Goes to the WC and leaves.
If Gerry went in by the front door, he would have caught them in the act.
If he used the patio door the watcher would have seen him only as he approached the gate.
If they were sent in immediately after Matthew's listening check, why are they still there?
Did Matt move the door/leave it ajar again during his check or did he leave it as he found it - open over 45° - meaning there were only 2 door moves?
So there were no gusts of wind when Matthew did his check, all that means is that the wind hadn't picked up then nothing more, he did a quick glance in and was gone. Though he did say the room was lighter he thought it was the moon. I beleive the blind and window were open when he did his check.I am inclined to agree with you Lace. It may have been the lull before the storm
Do yopu mmean in FULL DAYLIGHT ? The best time to take Madeleine? I dont think so. Dusk or dark would be better, and immediately after a check, the best time
Well, Sadie believes in her theory, so let's try discussing that, shall we?Well I believe it is a pretty strong possibility, but I dont KNOW that I am right.
That is an opinion.
The fact is, the case remains unsolved.
They didn't all sit down to order until 9pm. It was not daylight so you are wrong.
Sunset 8:25pm 3 May 2007
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2266934?month=5&year=2007
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2ij69oy.png)
Do you mean in FULL DAYLIGHT ? The best time to take Madeleine? I dont think so. Dusk or dark would be better, and immediately after a check, the best time
One of the videos shows Matt demonstating how he did his check ... and he didn't even reach the bedroom door IIRC. He saw the twins and didn't go any further ... so had the dirty deed already been done ?
This old computer doesn't do videos as far as I can see, but it might have been the Cutting edge Video
I think this is its address:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY
@SadieIt is over seven years since we ate there misty, so memories of some things are a bit wooly.
Was the adult swimming pool area lit up in any way after dark when you visited the Tapas Bar?
IMO one of the interesting things about this sequence is to look at GMcC, rather than MO.
https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY?t=781
and
https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY?t=794
It would be interesting if a body language expert could give an opinion (although I'm not sure how accurate body language is!).
My take is that GMcC is not convinced by what MO is saying.
Also from this point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY&feature=youtu.be&t=794
it shows hows easy it is to see out of the shutters if that was a motivation for opening the curtains/ window
Doesn't appear to be the correct link.
Did you mean here https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY?t=523 or here https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY?t=438 ?
Sorry, I don't like body language analysis so I won't pass comment on Gerry's during those moments.
Thanks. I've corrected the third link - the other links are correct.
The open slats in the video certainly provide good exterior visibility. Why would an intruder want or need to open the window in the circumstances or would you suggest for audibility - hearing a getaway vehicle pull up or some sort of warning sound?
With me not being very mechanically minded, do you how a person opens only a few slats on the aluminium shutter as you can't do that with a Venetian blind?
Doesn't appear to be the correct link.What about what he says, do you think that conflicts with what he says in his statements?
Did you mean here https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY?t=523 or here https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY?t=438 ?
Sorry, I don't like body language analysis so I won't pass comment on Gerry's during those moments.
The open slats in the video certainly provide good exterior visibility. Why would an intruder want or need to open the window in the circumstances or would you suggest for audibility - hearing a getaway vehicle pull up or some sort of warning sound?
With me not being very mechanically minded, do you how a person opens only a few slats on the aluminium shutter as you can't do that with a Venetian blind?
Who thinks Matthew could see a child breathing in that brown cot?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_14.jpg)
What about what he says, do you think that conflicts with what he says in his statements?
From the top:
You are not
I am
With greatest of difficulty
8(0(*
Roughly translated, can you answer or will curiosity kill me?
Oh all right then if you insist.*&(+(+
You are not mechanically minded, I am and separating the sections of the type of shutter as fitted to Apt 5A can only be achieved with the greatest of difficulty as the whole shutter is designed to roll up around a headshaft.
*&(+(+
OK. So are the slats governed by a separate pulley containing 3 separate cables which could, by design, open just a few lower slats, a few upper slats or the whole lot?
The slats are pinned together top and bottom using horizontal pins. Unless the pins are removed the slats remain as a continuous but flexible unit a bit like a shrimps back.. In the case of 5A the head shaft is rotated by a manually operated belt and pulley system. The slack generated in the belt is wound atomically onto a pretensioned reel. [a bit like the atomic winding of a vacuum cleaner power cord].
This should give a few basic clues: https://www.aikondistribution.com/sks,p102
When you lower the shutter completely all the slats drop down onto the one below thus closing out all the light. When you pull the tape slowly the topmost slats lift up letting light in. The more you pull the more slats rise up until light can come in through every space between the slats. If you pull even further the slats begin to lift up from the bottom slowly, continued pulling will raise all the slats up until they disappear completely into the roller housing box at the top of the window.
The problem is that we are not able to carry out a few experiments in the actual apartment so it is necessary to speculate a little.
It could be auditory, for example to hear someone approaching the front door (if necessary an intruder could exit via the sliding door), or just a general listening check to see if there is anyone about. Another possibility is to get closer to the shutters so it is easier to see through the holes.
Fiona Payne talks about adjusting the shutters in her rogatory:
"And I think we only ever sort of slightly opened, it was one of these shutters where, erm, sort of graded, erm, you can open it a little bit and it just opens up with a few holes to let a little bit of light in but the whole shutter is still actually down. And that's all we ever, we never opened the shutter, we just, we'd open it a bit in the morning to let a bit of light in and then shut it, erm, you know in, in the night-time to the point where it would only have a very minimum bit of light coming in"
When you lower the shutter completely all the slats drop down onto the one below thus closing out all the light. When you pull the tape slowly the topmost slats lift up letting light in. The more you pull the more slats rise up until light can come in through every space between the slats. If you pull even further the slats begin to lift up from the bottom slowly, continued pulling will raise all the slats up until they disappear completely into the roller housing box at the top of the window.
How important do you feel the shutter position is if the window was not the point of entry or exit? The reported open window & whooshing curtains could still be consistent with the slats being in the fully open position.IMO Misty if the Theoretical intruder had a key he would have came and went via the front door, and he could leave the place unforced. and left locked up.
The requirement of visual and/or audial checking of the front exterior of 5A would indicate that the front door was intended to be the point of exit. Either the theoretical intruder had a key or struck lucky that the door was not double-locked. So where would a Watcher have been - not on a balcony in Block 6 imo as per Sadie's theory but somewhere closer & with good visibility of both the starting position of any getaway vehicle & the exit point of 5A?
(I have excluded the use of mobile phones in this speculation)
IMO Misty if the Theoretical intruder had a key he would have came and went via the front door, and he could leave the place unforced. and left locked up.My bold,it seems as if by ruling out the supposed burglars the inside jobbie is all but ruled out imo.
If he didn't have a key he could enter via the patio window, and leave by the front door provided it was not double locked but they would be unable to fully close it behind him. You need a key to close that door from the out side.
So if he entered by the patio door he would plan to leave by the patio because you only need to pull it shut behind him.
With the right amount of planning the window could be left unlocked so a burglar could enter via the shutters and window close them up again and use some device to hold the dead latch back and exit via the front door. (It would then be an inside job because you would have to really know your apartment).
My bold,it seems as if by ruling out the supposed burglars the inside jobbie is all but ruled out imo.As I have explained to Sadie the burglars are ruled out of abducting Madeleine, I wonder if it is possible of ruling them out of waking Madeleine, and the abandoning the job. Matt found her "all quiet" yet something woke her in the next 10 minutes IMO.
I get that, Alice - but how do you explain the slats in this shot of shutter on bedroom window in 5A, please?
Who thinks Matthew could see a child breathing in that brown cot?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_14.jpg)
How important do you feel the shutter position is if the window was not the point of entry or exit? The reported open window & whooshing curtains could still be consistent with the slats being in the fully open position.
The requirement of visual and/or audial checking of the front exterior of 5A would indicate that the front door was intended to be the point of exit. Either the theoretical intruder had a key or struck lucky that the door was not double-locked. So where would a Watcher have been - not on a balcony in Block 6 imo as per Sadie's theory but somewhere closer & with good visibility of both the starting position of any getaway vehicle & the exit point of 5A?
(I have excluded the use of mobile phones in this speculation)
Ah, right. I've been assuming all along that the slats at the bottom of the shutter were the ones which were slightly open & that is why I couldn't understand how the system worked. Thanks, John.
IMO Misty if the Theoretical intruder had a key he would have came and went via the front door, and he could leave the place unforced. and left locked up.
If he didn't have a key he could enter via the patio window, and leave by the front door provided it was not double locked but they would be unable to fully close it behind him. You need a key to close that door from the out side.
So if he entered by the patio door he would plan to leave by the patio because you only need to pull it shut behind him.
With the right amount of planning the window could be left unlocked so a burglar could enter via the shutters and window close them up again and use some device to hold the dead latch back and exit via the front door. (It would then be an inside job because you would have to really know your apartment).
I'm not sure you have it right that the door required a key to pull the door shut from the outside. I think the lock works on the same principle as a YALE ... pull it behind you and if the snib is not engaged, it locks.(http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/f/1309414326/Annotated%20lock.jpg)http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown%27s%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20%28UPDATE
I'm not sure you have it right that the door required a key to pull the door shut from the outside. I think the lock works on the same principle as a YALE ... pull it behind you and if the snib is not engaged, it locks.That is a good photo - Do you see the rectangular block of metal beside the slip bolt? There are two bits of metal there but only one arrow. I think from experience you won't be able to close this door without the key in the lock as these two pieces will be independent.(http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/f/1309414326/Annotated%20lock.jpg)http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown%27s%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20%28UPDATE
That is a good photo - Do you see the rectangular block of metal beside the slip bolt? 1) There are two bits of metal there but only one arrow. I think from experience you won't be able to close this door without the key in the lock 2) as these two pieces will be independent.
1) Quite rightAs I said before I experienced a door where these two pieces were independent. From the photo we can't tell.
2) Quite wrong.......they form a composite piece.
As I said before I experienced a door where these two pieces were independent. From the photo we can't tell.
I think that this photo is an exercise in HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT. Maybe not deliberately !
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/05/article-1041660-022B835300000578-206_468x307.jpg
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/05/article-1041660-022B835300000578-206_468x307.jpg)
Showing that the height of the sides of the twins cots was very low. Use the drawers in the chest to give you an indication
Madeleines bed is approx 2" lower then the top of the second drawer. The cots are approx 2" higher than the top of the same drawer.
Given that whilst flat 5A is decently furnished, the furniture is not expensive,... Madeleines bed is unlikely to be high off the ground and the sides of the twins cots only about 4" higher. IMO the photograph that we keep seeing was taken from a lowish level.
See the door handle? An educated GUESS would have it at 3'0" - 3' 6" off the ground; most probably one metre
Below another view to add perspective to that measurement. See the door handle just under the lamp ?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/05/article-1041660-022B835900000578-289_468x305.jpg
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/05/article-1041660-022B835900000578-289_468x305.jpg)
... and the original image that we keep seeing which is giving out false info, or at least info that we haven't understood.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_14.jpg
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_14.jpg)
Matts eye level would be way higher than the camera height. He must be almost as tall as Russell who was reported, on here, a few days ago to be 6' 6" tall
His line of sight would be way higher than portrayed in that photo. My take is that he may well have been able to see both the twins breathing from within the bedroom entrance.
The fact that he could see them was partially because a light was left on in the sitting room ..., and IMO partially because rather more light than the usual tiny amount was coming in via the window shutters.
Was there a lull before the storm, so no draughts and no curtains flying ?.
Had the dreaded deed been done and dusted by then?
In the back of my mind there is a vague remembrance of reading that the weather became very gusty later ... and it was at its height about 10pm. I cannot prove that any more, so believe or disbelieve
Everything that I have stated is fact, or questions, excepting where I have already indicated that it was my opinion.
We did this to death nearly a year ago.
I posted reams of data sheets and comics on the style of latch at the time.
The two lumps form a composite component.
Matthew described how it worked if you can make any sense of it at all. I think he may be saying that from the inside, if not double-locked, it could be opened and closed again. If so, it could be pulled to a close from the outside also;
4078 'Okay. And this door here, what was the door like''
Reply 'Erm, brown, erm, big, brown and wood, brown and wood like. There was a lock, erm, it sort of, you know, one of those you turn twice with the key. And I think, and sort of I think a round, or was it like a lever handle, I can't remember what the handle was like, I think you had to turn it to go in and so it would snip, erm, you couldn't really shut it with the lock on, but I think if you didn't lock it up here you could then just open it and shut it, I think you had to actually lock it to, it wasn't like a Yale thing that, erm, stops you opening it again, I think'.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Matthew described how it worked if you can make any sense of it at all. I think he may be saying that from the inside, if not double-locked, it could be opened and closed again. If so, it could be pulled to a close from the outside also;I really think that means you can only pull the door closed from outside if the key is in the lock. We saw it in the video of the cleaners they had to activate the internal lever to close the door from the inside (They didn't just slam the door shut)
4078 'Okay. And this door here, what was the door like''
Reply 'Erm, brown, erm, big, brown and wood, brown and wood like. There was a lock, erm, it sort of, you know, one of those you turn twice with the key. And I think, and sort of I think a round, or was it like a lever handle, I can't remember what the handle was like, I think you had to turn it to go in and so it would snip, erm, you couldn't really shut it with the lock on, but I think if you didn't lock it up here you could then just open it and shut it, I think you had to actually lock it to, it wasn't like a Yale thing that, erm, stops you opening it again, I think'.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I really think that means you can only pull the door closed from outside if the key is in the lock. We saw it in the video of the cleaners they had to activate the internal lever to close the door from the inside (They didn't just slam the door shut)
The slip bolt is clearly made of two parts.
Talking about the cleaners and the locks on the door. One family who stayed in that block said that the cleaner would come into the apartment when they weren't ready for her so they locked the door and left the key in the lock, the cleaner however still managed to get inside!!
@Gunit.
Did you see the following? Do you still think that Matt couldn't see the twins breathing ... even th eone in the brown ended cot?
Going back to the slats of the blind in the children's bedroom. Would a few open slats show the whole curtains up as Green and Yellow? Also if these few slats were open, how come no one mentioned them as being open when doing a check from the outside of the bedroom window?
If those slats were broken as in not shutting properly, then it only proves that those blinds were dodgy.
First of all, he makes no mention of breathing in his initial statements. He can 'see' or' 'glimpse' the twins, maybe. He didn't go into the bedroom, in fact he can't remember how near he did get to the door.
It's only when he's pushed in his rog interview that breathing is introduced into his testimony. As he fails to describe the cots or their positions correctly my opinion is that the suggestion that he could see the twins breathing has to be taken with a fairly large pinch of salt.
4th May
He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots.
10th May
That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door.......further, due to, in his mind, having managed to glimpse the two twins inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner.
Rogatory interview
So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in......the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing .....there was a gap between the two and the sides are mesh, erm'.......4078 'So you saw the sides. Do you remember which way the children were facing in the cots''
Reply 'No, it was just, you could just see the shape and bits of breathing'..............you'd see, erm, part of this one, slightly obstructed by this one, but enough to see through the grill, erm, and this one you'd see through the, through the mesh side, you'd see the kids'.
the external blinds closed but with some slats open,The picture name was "Light_on_Shutters" I think this is what it shows rather than some slats open. I don't understand why you said "the external blinds closed but with some slats open".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Light_on_Shutters.jpg
the external blinds closed but with some slats open,Gunit, sorry, but that image is a disgrace. I am surprised at you.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Light_on_Shutters.jpg)
Gunit, sorry, but that image is a disgrace. I am surprised at you.
We have shown several times how it was at the time that Madeleine vanished, with trees all around and just a small gap that someone on the balcony opposite could signal through. We have had lengthy arguments about the view, yet YOU choose to show a photograph of what it was like years later when it was completely devoid of trees.
.... as it was years .later when the surrounding trees were cut down, apparently in readiness for Pat Browns visit. Another disgrace that was, with all the disinformation put about at that time.
Sadie, the picture you posted a while back shows exactly what the situation was like the night Madeleine disappeared from apartment 5a. Notice how the mature trees bordering the carpark wall cast a shadow on 5a front door.
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4926891277_7b9b7bef4b_b.jpg)
4078 'Do you remember or can you recall what the street lighting was like around there''He was correct on that but because of the foliage on the heads of the trees none of the lights shone on the front door nor on Madeleines window.
Reply 'There's a street light, and this is all, erm, I couldn't sort of guarantee this, but my impression is that there was, the street lights were sort of very orangey, erm, sort of fairly orangey light, I think there was one at the top corner and maybe one about halfway up on the right as you came up from the Tapas Restaurant and possibly one on that, on that back bit behind the car park, someway further along'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
He was correct on that but because of the foliage on the heads of the trees none of the lights shone on the front door nor on Madeleines window.
In the case of the middle light (opposite the patio area of 5A,) neither the actual front door nor Madeleines window would have been illuminated by it, because the NE wall corner of 5A would have blocked the light and cast a shadow over them. [To clarify my meaning, I suggest that you read this in conjunction with a close up GE plan image]
Please NOTE
The photo below was not taken from the balcony upon which the Watcher, in my theory was standing ... but probably from the stairwell towards the eastern end of the front of block 6. This is 15 metres north of the Watchers balcony of my theory.
This means that the view that the Watcher got was not directly on Madeleines window, but was on the eastern side of the walkway immediately outside that window and within that walkway wall. (The watcher could not see that darkened wall at all but her could see the part of the walkway immediately outside Madeleines window, near the walkway wall.) Of course, it also included most of the area in front of the front door of 5A
I am finding this very difficult to describe. Hope you can understand.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4926891277_7b9b7bef4b_b.jpg
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4926891277_7b9b7bef4b_b.jpg)
Effectively there was no significant light on Madeleines actual window. The doorway was really dark.
Facts and also some IMO
Effectively there was no significant light on Madeleines actual window. The doorway was really dark.
He was correct on that but because of the foliage on the heads of the trees none of the lights shone on the front door nor on Madeleines window.
In the case of the middle light (opposite the patio area of 5A,) neither the actual front door nor Madeleines window would have been illuminated by it, because the NE wall corner of 5A would have blocked the light and cast a shadow over them. [To clarify my meaning, I suggest that you read this in conjunction with a close up GE plan image]
Please NOTE
The photo below was not taken from the balcony upon which the Watcher, in my theory was standing ... but probably from the stairwell towards the eastern end of the front of block 6. This is 15 metres north of the Watchers balcony of my theory.
This means that the view that the Watcher got was not directly on Madeleines window, but was on the eastern side of the walkway immediately outside that window and within that walkway wall. (The watcher could not see that darkened wall at all but her could see the part of the walkway immediately outside Madeleines window, near the walkway wall.) Of course, it also included most of the area in front of the front door of 5A
I am finding this very difficult to describe. Hope you can understand.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4926891277_7b9b7bef4b_b.jpg
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4926891277_7b9b7bef4b_b.jpg)
Effectively there was no significant light on Madeleines actual window. The doorway was really dark.
Facts and also some IMO
I think the lighting in that photograph benefits from the white light of the security floodlight. I wonder if that is the light previous occupants of the apartment said was broken at the time of their stay.
That white floodlght attaxhed to block 5 was added long after the disappearance Brietta.
Are you saying there was no gap in the foliage through which that light could shine on the shutters?I am saying exactly that. Light does not bend or go round corners. There may be a little reflected light but nothing of substance. There were only two gaps in the foliage
So not the broken one then, John.
Perhaps that one covered the door recess?
The addition of the spotlight and security railings on the window and side gate seem to indicate that a belated risk assessment suggested the benefits.
There was only one lamp standard capable of shining light on the front of 5a and that lamp was located adjacent to the car park entrance. Difficulty is, we don't know if that particular lamp was even lit the night Madeleine disappeared.Ah, thank you for that John.
There is an entire thread dedicated to the ambient lighting and its effect on the children's bedroom window.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6165.msg228833#msg228833
(http://i.imgur.com/Mj3u0Mc.jpg)
So not the broken one then, John.That was the talk early on Brietta. That the light in the porchway to 5A was broken at the time. I seem to remember talk about it being physically broken as opposed to the bulb had conked out, but it was a long time ago.
Perhaps that one covered the door recess?
The addition of the spotlight and security railings on the window and side gate seem to indicate that a belated risk assessment suggested the benefits.
Not to mention the almost complete removal of the lovely trees.Gawd, what a sin.
That was the talk early on Brietta. That the light in the porchway to 5A was broken at the time. I seem to remember talk about it being physically broken as opposed to the bulb had conked out, but it was a long time ago.
Perhaps others will remember the details better than me.
It might have been sabotagedExactly.
With the caveat abduction is a theory and not proven fact (and there are other theories - e.g. tracker dog trail indicating w&w) I would speculate as follows (briefly):
1. If the shutter was pretty much fully raised with the window and curtain open then I would speculate the following scenario:
a) the front door was double locked and the intruder did not have a key
b) MBM was the target
c) the intruder entered via the sliding patio door, I would have expected the patio door to be secured by an intruder
d) the intruder may have subdued MBM - e.g. binding arms/legs, etc.
e) the intruder had an accomplice
f) MBM was passed through the window to the accomplice, who took MBM away possibly without the intruder
g) the possibility is, given lack of fibre evidence on the window frame, that the intruder exited out through the sliding patio door, leaving the patio door unlocked
h) this may indicate the intruder was an insider who had to return to work
===
2. If the shutter is was not disturbed much then I speculate that the exit point was the front door, but there was a desire to "check the coast is clear" or look out for a getaway vehicle.
But I freely admit the above is speculative at best!
All IMO, etc.
FYI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hd7IOiOUc4
That still doesn't show how to open a few slats, Alice. Given all the equipment & expertise needed for installation, I think I'll leave any prospective window shutter issues to a handyman (no links to James Taylor, please).
That still doesn't show how to open a few slats, Alice. Given all the equipment & expertise needed for installation, I think I'll leave any prospective window shutter issues to a handyman (no links to James Taylor, please).
When you pull on the strap, tension is applied to the top of the shutters first. Tension opens the slats first, because they are stored in the housing with the slats in the open position. Only when all the slats are open does the shutter as a whole begin to rise. So, pulling on the strap opens the slats at the top first, and you can stop pulling and leave it like that if you wish.
I think the shutter works on the opposite principle to your comment and the slats can be opened when the shutter has been lowered & then tension decreased. (Alice????)
https://www.weru.uk/roller-shutters/
I think the shutter works on the opposite principle to your comment and the slats can be opened when the shutter has been lowered & then tension decreased. (Alice????)
https://www.weru.uk/roller-shutters/
I have lost track of what is being asked 8)><(.
First off don't conflate roller shutters and venetian blinds.They are totally different animals which have different purposes, are of differing design and operate differently; apart from that they are the same ?{)(**
The "curtain" of a roller shutter has more in common with a roll top bread bin (remember those) than a venetian blind. [links to both below]
http://www.barnitts.co.uk/products/details/10968.html?adid=25440&aditem=10968&gref=44650200193
https://www.luxaflex.co.uk/products/venetian-blinds/?gclid=CjwKCAiA9f7QBRBpEiwApLGUiqMG9EhiBgjLlQw8fSrJ6UHdQUdHnUy_w9jQLYrv3Q_LjQfFhf506xoCvSAQAvD_BwE
On a roller shutter curtain the top of one lath is fixed to the bottom of the lath above it using metal pins or a crimped construction which slide together a bit like hooking and locking the fingers of each hand together[see System 2000 link below]. The two laths cannot be separated except by force or disassembly. There will be some free movement between the two laths in the vertical plane due to manufacturing and fitting tolerances this is called backlash. In the case of a roller shutter the collective backlash[free movement] will be taken out as the curtain lowers on the bottom stop. The curtain can be raised any amount you like using the proper method or CDA. If you try any other method you need to jam the curtain at the height you need.
http://www.system2000group.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/SBizhub-13072209280-page-001.jpg
Yeah but no but.....I understand the slats are vertical when raised up around the roller. All I was trying to establish was how they could be partially vented (photo of bedroom window showed slats open at top rather than bottom as I had previously thought). So you lower the shutter to the desired level via the ratchet then release the tension to slightly tilt the slats, a process which starts at the top slat. Is that right? If not.... (^&&
Yeah but no but.....I understand the slats are vertical when raised up around the roller. All I was trying to establish was how they could be partially vented (photo of bedroom window showed slats open at top rather than bottom as I had previously thought). So you lower the shutter to the desired level via the ratchet then release the tension to slightly tilt the slats, a process which starts at the top slat. Is that right? If not.... (^&&
@Misty(https://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/shutters.jpg)
I think the controversy which has arisen regarding the shutter is that it was mistakenly assumed that the shutters were 'security' when they were down causing the McCanns to assume they had been forced ... and that it was mistakenly assumed they could not be raised from outside.
We know better now.
@Misty
That photo shows the top portion of the shutters partial opened to let some light in with the bottom half still closed.
It all goes back to the comment Innominate made about the possibility of the shutter not having been raised at all & Kate having false memory.Maybe but why would anyone remember that? To get enough wind to blow the curtains you would need the shutters up and the window open. Even if the window was open and the shutters just with the slats open I doubt if the draft would be sufficient, but only IMO.
What I have deduced from all the shutter talk is the slats would have to be virtually all open for anyone inside the apartment to see out into the car park as the slats on the shutter open from the top down. That would have let quite a lot of streetlight into the apartment but, more importantly, I think it would have been noticeable to anyone walking through the car park
It all goes back to the comment Innominate made about the possibility of the shutter not having been raised at all & Kate having false memory.
What I have deduced from all the shutter talk is the slats would have to be virtually all open for anyone inside the apartment to see out into the car park as the slats on the shutter open from the top down. That would have let quite a lot of streetlight into the apartment but, more importantly, I think it would have been noticeable to anyone walking through the car park
Gerry said;"When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment." So Gerry confirms seeing what Kate says she found.
The outside blinds were closed with only two or three slats open
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
So that would be the top two or three. I don't think anyone would have noticed from the car park if all the slats were open because, it seems, no-one noticed when the shutter was almost fully raised.
the external blinds almost fully raised,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
It all goes back to the comment Innominate made about the possibility of the shutter not having been raised at all & Kate having false memory.Soz misty to disagree.
What I have deduced from all the shutter talk is the slats would have to be virtually all open for anyone inside the apartment to see out into the car park as the slats on the shutter open from the top down. That would have let quite a lot of streetlight into the apartment but, more importantly, I think it would have been noticeable to anyone walking through the car park
(https://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/shutters.jpg)
I think the controversy which has arisen regarding the shutter is that it was mistakenly assumed that the shutters were 'security' when they were down causing the McCanns to assume they had been forced ... and that it was mistakenly assumed they could not be raised from outside.
We know better now.
The picture name was "Light_on_Shutters" I think this is what it shows rather than some slats open. I don't understand why you said "the external blinds closed but with some slats open".This picture doesn't show anything Rob, because there was a thick bank of trees between that light and the shutters, completely blocking out all that light. That light didn't shine on the shutters in 2007.
Can you explain your conclusion please?
Maybe but why would anyone remember that? To get enough wind to blow the curtains you would need the shutters up and the window open. Even if the window was open and the shutters just with the slats open I doubt if the draft would be sufficient, but only IMO.The unlined curtains were as cheap as chips. They would have blown very easily, especially if there was another window open in the flat.
After a day hot enough for most to go down to the beach, the flat could have become quite hot. I see no sign of air conditioning. Did kate and Gerry leave one of the lounge side windows open? It was too high for an intruder to use for entry.
This picture doesn't show anything Rob, because there was a thick bank of trees between that light and the shutters, completely blocking out all that light. That light didn't shine on the shutters in 2007.
If you can prove that no light from any of the street lamps could possibly shine through the two or three open slats on that shutter then do so. Otherwise your complaint is based only on your OPINION.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7170/6637413327_37f08d3e04_b.jpg)
https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/LPFR/2007/5/3/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Lagos&req_state=&req_statename=Portugal&MR=1
If you can prove that no light from any of the street lamps could possibly shine through the two or three open slats on that shutter then do so. Otherwise your complaint is based only on your opinion.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7170/6637413327_37f08d3e04_b.jpg)
https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/LPFR/2007/5/3/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Lagos&req_state=&req_statename=Portugal&MR=1
Sadie. You have consistently peddled myths in my opinion.No myths from me
1. That the balcony of 5A was 'bathed in light'. It wasn't, imo.
2. That the patio doors were clearly visible from the Tapas restaurant. The witnesses say they were not.
From where we sat in the Tapas restaurant, 5A patio windows were virtually completely visible. The Tapas group sat a couple of metres or so to the west of us, but they still had a reasonable view of the patio windows. I have checked it on the reverse photo that I used to post so often.
We were lucky in that the hedges had recently been cut when we were there and it was the same situation when The Tapas group were there. It is somewhere in the statements about them being cut whilst Kate and Gerry were there IIRC.
If I am wrong on the last statement then i am happy to be corrected.
Foliage on the western Algarve grows at an astounding rate and it is essential to see this view when the bushes have just been cut back. I guess that they will have grown bigger now, ten years on..
The tapas group were inside the tapas tent Sadie which you will recall had clear plastic windows which blurred any objects outside. Maybe you were seated outside or at a part of the tapas with no side flaps thus offering a better view of the balconies beyond?
(http://i.imgur.com/CjQPxGg.jpg)
Sky's Martin Brunt points to the McCann apartment and explains how difficult it would have been for them to see very much through the clear plastic side panels fitted to the tapas tent.
(https://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/shutters.jpg)
I think the controversy which has arisen regarding the shutter is that it was mistakenly assumed that the shutters were 'security' when they were down causing the McCanns to assume they had been forced ... and that it was mistakenly assumed they could not be raised from outside.
We know better now.
It is obvious from looking at the photograph you have posted that the roller shutter is not there as security.
A large number of people would have known that a roller shutter can be raised from the outside a long long time before Madeleine McCann disappeared.
A lot would have known how a lock operates too.
We are getting nowhere fast with the locks and shutters. Maybe it's time to knock it on the head?
Hopefully this link shows how light it was (not) on that balcony. If not watch from 12:50That is the DonnyDarko version of The Cutting Edge Video. I see that has 40,000 viewings whilst the Official one has less than 3000 viewings. Why was it made? Is it different ? DonnyDarko has made quite a few odd videos about the Mccanns. Why ? What is his purpose especially with this particular Cutting Edge video which was already published and out?
https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY?t=771
As to the view from the Tapas lets see what a witness who was there says;
Reply 'Erm well yeah I could see, I mean I could see the patio doors of ours and Gerry and Kates'.
1578 'How much of the patio doors''
Reply 'Erm well kind of the top half really'.
1578 'Okay'.
Reply "Yeah you know, I didn't get a full you know, you couldn't get a full view sort of right in, cos there were bushes, there were bushes and stuff there, erm'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
What's the difference whether the balcony was lit or unlit, no one can see through walls.
There is a school of thought that any abductors were in the alley, from where they could see the Tapas very easily. Once everyone was seated, all they had to do then was nip up the steps into the apartment. Job done, Sadie's watchers and keys not needed.
Maybe the child got fed up being left alone every night so got up went out, was run over, carried off never to be seen again? No planned abduction needed.
It's fairly clear that no-one went in through that window, so there's no need to surmise it was opened from the outside any more.It's fairly obvious that no-one went in or out through that window. Glad to agree with you for a change
There is a school of thought that any abductors were in the alley, from where they could see the Tapas very easily. Once everyone was seated, all they had to do then was nip up the steps into the apartment. Job done, Sadie's watchers and keys not needed.Let's have that theory and examine it in detail, shall we? Why dont you promote it ?
You would only need a team of two, possibly three, two or three burner phones and a getaway motor imo.
We have to satisfy the condition of "no sign of a break in" as reported by the police who attended the scene.
I have this great idea.................. ?{)(**
I think it more likely to be an accident of some sort.
https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/europe/portugal/portugese-petty-crime
"One event that bears mentioning is the 2007 disappearance of 3 year old Madeleine McCann, who was vacationing with her family in Portugal's Algarve region.
The crime made international news and rocked Portugal. Many rumors and theories have surfaced, but to date none have been proven and the child has never been found.
While the tragedy has not yet been solved and is still under investigation, it appears to be an isolated incident. There haven't been any other similar crimes there since".
Note what does not have a mention...... *%87
1After all the publicity and police work of the Madeleine case, it would take a brave and foolish man to abduct another child in the region.1 Why? on that basis most crime would cease everywhere.
2However it appears that some children have been abused in their own beds as their parents slept nearby.
Our discussion began because I thought your posts insisting that the balcony was 'bathed in light' and that the patio doors were in full view of the Tapas diners were not based on available evidence.The patiio area was bathed in light from the street light opposite .. but I always made it clear that it was not a strong light
I provided evidence which suggested the balcony was actually pretty dark and the diners stated that they couldn't see the patio doors.
It would be nice if you could concentrate on answering my points.
What ever you try and claim Gunit, the patio area WAS illuminated by the street lamp immediately opposite. I have made a point of never claiming that it was brightly lit. However, it couldn't have been too bad, that close to a street lamp, could it?
The patiio area was bathed in light from the street light opposite .. but I always made it clear that it was not a strong light
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AG/Extras_do_livro_Page_5.jpg
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AG/Extras_do_livro_Page_5.jpg)
The hedge is blanking off much of the patio / balcony area in the lower image
I dont know why the light didn't appear very much on the video. I am not technical but perhaps it was because the camera wasn't terribly high quality and hadn't the necessary pixels or power or something. And i accept that these images above could be brighter from a longer exposure than was necessary. To be honest we dont know all the technical bits and because of that it is swings and roundabouts. Too exposed? OR No pixels/ power/ poor quality camera? We just dont know
What ever you try and claim Gunit, the patio area WAS illuminated by the street lamp immediately opposite. I have made a point of never claiming that it was brightly lit. However, it couldn't have been too bad, that close to a street lamp, could it?
Thank you. As you say, it's not possible to be sure either way because the camera can give a false impression. Consequently it's not possible, in my opinion, to say whether the balcony was bathed in light or not. as you have been declaring for years;
that patio area was bathed in light from the street light immediately opposite.
It was also only 50 metres away from the parents and their friends and they could see the whole area.
Reply #167 on: September 30, 2016, 10:57:03 PM »
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7643.msg357681#msg357681
I see no reason why your theory is more believable than that of Ian Horrocks;
Due to the height of the wall and foliage on top of it, as well as the area inside being well lit, in contrast to the darkness elsewhere, those dining would have been easily observed whilst anyone in the alleyway could remain unseen........
Anyone observing their routine would have known that they had at least 20 minutes between each check. They would have observed the group for a few minutes and then gone to the apartment. At the end of the alleyway they could see that the road was clear, it is then only literally a second for someone to go through the gate and into the garden area, where they would be virtually out of sight. It is then simple to enter the apartment through the patio doors, which although closed, had been left unlocked.
http://www.bgpglobalservices.com/happened-madeleine-mccann-2/
A very simple theory but it works.
Indeed it does and ties in nicely with Sadie's Theory of how easily Madeleine might have been abducted from her bed by a stranger/s.
The only thing they have in common, however.If they had a key,, though, he might have gone in via the front door
Horrocks seems to prefer the Tanner sighting to the Smith sighting but has overlooked the fact that no-one would emerge from that passageway and go in the gate while Gerry McCann was standing in the street.
The patiio area was bathed in light from the street light opposite .. but I always made it clear that it was not a strong light
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AG/Extras_do_livro_Page_5.jpg
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AG/Extras_do_livro_Page_5.jpg)
The hedge is blanking off much of the patio / balcony area in the lower image
I dont know why the light didn't appear very much on the video. I am not technical but perhaps it was because the camera wasn't terribly high quality and hadn't the necessary pixels or power or something. And i accept that these images above could be brighter from a longer exposure than was necessary. To be honest we dont know all the technical bits and because of that it is swings and roundabouts. Too exposed? OR No pixels/ power/ poor quality camera? We just dont know
What ever you try and claim Gunit, the patio area WAS illuminated by the street lamp immediately opposite. I have made a point of never claiming that it was brightly lit. However, it couldn't have been too bad, that close to a street lamp, could it?
If they had a key,, though, he might have gone in via the front door
if you have a theory Gunit, let it rip That is what it is all about, trying to find out what might have happened.
the external blinds closed but with some slats open,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Light_on_Shutters.jpg)
Senior Editor comment
To avoid any misunderstanding, this photo was taken many years after Madeleine disappeared when the trees bordering the car park east side had been removed. The shutter appears as it was in May 2007.
the external blinds closed but with some slats open,Are you suggesting that band of light on the shutters is coming through from the interior?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Light_on_Shutters.jpg)
Senior Editor comment
To avoid any misunderstanding, this photo was taken many years after Madeleine disappeared when the trees bordering the car park east side had been removed. The shutter appears as it was in May 2007.
I think these photos are misleading as they don't truly represent the normal illumination in this street.
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AG/Extras_do_livro_Page_5.jpg)
The street was normally quite dimly lit.
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=89
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=89
[youtube]https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=89[/youtube]
Despite the lighting not being very strong, the figures stand out extremely boldly. No missing them. Of course we dont know which strength of lighting is nearer correct, that in the video or that in the photos below that Amaral /the PJ show as correct.
I am not spending unnecessary time looking for a cite for Amarals statement, most readers will have seen it.. It was when he was trying to justify his claim that Madeleine died in Apt. 5A, because no-one could get in. Then he stated something along the lines of 'no intruder would go into 5A because the Tapas group / parents were so close'. {just over 50 metres)
He said that:
i) The front door was locked so no-one could get in ... IMO Amaral never wanted to consider the possibility of keys being obtained and used, despite other entries into flats in block 5 in the few weeks before. IMO Entries that were thought to have been via the front door
.
I think it is a logical conclusion that there had to be a vehicle involved at some stage to enable Madeleine to vanish so completely in such a short time scale.
"What I find illogical is that those who adhere to some very seriously outlandish theories involving anything from clones to refrigeration to coffin invasion and cremation are so resistant to Sadie's theory.
One wonders, is it its straight forward simplicity and the stranger abduction theme which is most certainly a contender to knocking what has become a belief system of parental involvement into the long grass which makes it so abhorrent?"
I haven't seen any cogent argument made regarding any aspect of Sadie's theory which starts: "I think that is impossible for the simple reason that ... ", because in my opinion you have thought about workable possibilities in systematic progression which addresses most eventualities.
One can't help thinking that had the initial investigation adopted a similar methodology at the time of Madeleine's disappearance that over ten years down the line there would be no 'mystery' or need of conspiracy theories to justify error.
In my opinion, Sadie's theory is a workable hypothesis which in its simplicity, is thought provoking.
Even if the 'watcher' couldn't see Jez and Gerry, surely he / she could hear them having an animated conversation?
In addition, why would the abductor even bother trying to make this abduction look like even more like an abduction by opening the window and shutter?
Weren't all of the occupants of the adjacent blocks interviewed?
It might be sensible to consider if this watcher existed before discussing what he might have seen or heard.It's sort of the point. I don't think the watcher is a viable proposition. Neither do I think an abductor would start playing Cluedo opening windows and shutters, otherwise why stop there, time permitting? Modifying the scene is only required when you want one thing to look like another thing.
Yet for some unfathomable reason GM or JW couldn't see JT.
This has been covered very thoroughly elsewhere several times. I don't intend going thru all this again. Sorry General
This has been covered very thoroughly elsewhere several times. I don't intend going thru all this again. Sorry GeneralThat's great news. So why invite us to re-read it then and exhume the thread?
This theory is only of interest to those who share it's unproven assumption; that Madeleine McCann was anducted. Until that's proved there's little point in discussing how it might have been done imo.Having re-read this post, I actually disagree. There's every point in discussing how it might have been done. We're always being accused of being 'illogical' when we don't believe the official narrative, yet however diligently researched and, subsequently, eloquently purported, here we have a theory that, even on my first reading with fresh eyes, has more holes than a horse trader's mule.
Having re-read this post, I actually disagree. There's every point in discussing how it might have been done. We're always being accused of being 'illogical' when we don't believe the official narrative, yet however diligently researched and, subsequently, eloquently purported, here we have a theory that, even on my first reading with fresh eyes, has more holes than a horse trader's mule.
Having re-read this post, I actually disagree. There's every point in discussing how it might have been done. We're always being accused of being 'illogical' when we don't believe the official narrative, yet however diligently researched and, subsequently, eloquently purported, here we have a theory that, even on my first reading with fresh eyes, has more holes than a horse trader's mule.
I like the sound of that ... give us your first shot ... doesn't need to be an epistle ... just something we can discuss in context and structured for debate.Well I would, of course, but I don't believe it either.
I have some sympathy with Sadie's theory but it ultimately relies on the Tanner sighting being that of an abductor. However, as both SY and the PJ have recently gone on record to say that Tannerman was an innocent tourist and so irrelevant, I can see no basis for it being true.
I must add that I don't believe that the man identified by SY was the man Tanner saw.
Well I would, of course, but I don't believe it either.
This theory is only of interest to those who share it's unproven assumption; that Madeleine McCann was anducted. Until that's proved there's little point in discussing how it might have been done imo.When it is proved there will be little point in discussing how it may have been done as that will have already been established by the police and the court. What would you permit us to discuss then?
This theory is only of interest to those who share it's unproven assumption; that Madeleine McCann was anducted. Until that's proved there's little point in discussing how it might have been done imo.
When it is proved there will be little point in discussing how it may have been done as that will have already been established by the police and the court. What would you permit us to discuss then?
With respect I think that is a cop out. You made a firm statement criticising Sadie's theory which either you are unable to substantiate or you just can't be bothered.If you read back a few posts you will see that I already did make a few points, but was quickly shut down as 'it's already been discussed'. So what's the point. No kop out here, queen.
Sadie doesn't mind constructive criticism and indeed encourages it. I believe she is open to amending either to add to it or to subtract from it.
Quite a pity you seem to be averse to taking that on board ~ could have been of some interest. as we haven't added anything to this thread in the light of recent developments.
It seems Amaral's unproven assumptions which I think were largely discredited in jig time after he was sacked from the case ... remain flavour of the past twelve years.
So on that basis I think sensible and more importantly ~ discussion which is not designed to harm and castigate anyone (with the obvious exception of the abductor presently being sought by the police) is worth thinking about.
Oh YOU get to decide what can and Can't be discussed- wow how the mighty have grown.
Questioning the behaviour of the parents is not about harming them it is about finding out the real truth! The real victim is Madeleine- NOT the parents, they can stick up for themselves, AND BOY do they do that and then some!
Maddie can't ask questions about what has happened to her can she?
Sadies theory was chucked out by the police- end of.
where is the evidence that the PJ are addning more officers and seeking an abductor. Word is -SY are looking at a scapegoat.
Is there any evidence to contradict the newspaper report? Have the police issued a denial? Just using some oft used sceptic logic there btw.
It was in a newspaper. You can't argue with that. 8)-)))
I am surprised that a person of your undoubted intellect could say such an inane thing.
Of course they have to have theories and test them. In a case like this, there is very little else.
Sling out a few more challenges to the theory, Gunit: let's see if we can further progress it.
I am not sure that I am up to it atm tho
Oh YOU get to decide what can and Can't be discussed- wow how the mighty have grown.
Questioning the behaviour of the parents is not about harming them it is about finding out the real truth! The real victim is Madeleine- NOT the parents, they can stick up for themselves, AND BOY do they do that and then some!
Maddie can't ask questions about what has happened to her can she?
Sadies theory was chucked out by the police- end of.
where is the evidence that the PJ are addning more officers and seeking an abductor. Word is -SY are looking at a scapegoat.
The fact that SY have identified Tannerman is evidence your theory has been dismissed by them.
New set of guys in control now.
Redwood was superceded by Redmond. I dealt with Redmond, Is he still overseeing it at the investigating level? Anyone KNOW?
DCI Andy Redwood was superceded by DCI Nicola Wall.
Who is Redmond?
"on about my 5th visit" lol
It's no wonder the investigation is taking so long, what with you wasting police time.
The guy who at ground level led the reduced team. Maybe still does.
DS Redmond. The officer who was prepared to look at a totally different theory to any others taken in. An open minded man, prepared to search in other ways to the tried and tested ways
Presumably the pointers, I passed on, rang a bell or tied up in a convincing way. Some were very powerful
Prior to dealing with him I had dealt with a rather dismissive Constable . dismissive just like a lot of you. And I also dealt with another sargent on about my 5th visit no more Constables.
Did you see the unnamed Sergeant after DS Redmond or before?
The guy who at ground level led the reduced team. Maybe still does.
DS Redmond. The officer who was prepared to look at a totally different theory to any others taken in. An open minded man, prepared to search in other ways to the tried and tested ways
Presumably the pointers, I passed on, rang a bell or tied up in a convincing way. Some were very powerful
Prior to dealing with him I had dealt with a rather dismissive Constable . dismissive just like a lot of you. And I also dealt with another sargent on about my 5th visit no more Constables.
Were you ont up to the bit where you said you know who the 'abductor was' and couldn't tell us his name?
and isn't is strange that the newspapers get hold of a name. coincidence or what.
Anywhoo. you do not like anyone elses theory so why should people buy yours?
I was half expecting Humpty Dumpty to be called as a witness he may have been on that very wall-before his untimely fall...
I think sadies theory is very plausable.
I doubt very much if the Police would give away who they are investigating, I believe the newspapers have been given a red herring.
By whom and to what end ?
My opinion is that the current agenda is being driven in large part by 9News.