Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

[Venturi Swirl]

Then there's your revised answer. Sometime before the early hours of May 4th. He isn't contradicting himself at all, your trying to do it for him.

Because he heard the commotion between 10 and 11 and heard Gerry's conversation later on during his search is not a contradiction. Get a grip, the poor guy went out of his way to try to look for the child (unlike her mother) and you've falsely accused him of contradicting himself and going as far as calling him an eavesdropper.

IMO you'd have to be off your head to try and help McCanns. Most of those who have tried to do so have been subjected to insults for their trouble and treated with contempt.

Mr Mackenzie remembered what he was shocked to hear Gerry knew there were paedophile gangs operating in Portugal. That's the important bit.

By the way how is he not contradicting himself if he says the commotion was between 10 and 11pm, and he heard Gerry talking on his phone two hours later at 11pm?  If this waas David Payne giving a statement you'd be treating it as significant evidence of lying!

[Gertrude]

Yes thanks for confirming there is nothing to prove there is anything that exactly mirrors the child's disappearance.

You have to employ your imagination at this stage and pretend it does.

There was DNA from Aaron Campbell on the dead child that linked him to the crime, but you just keep on pretending if it makes you feel better.

There was also a figure seen on the beach carrying a large bag, this figure ( Campbell) was also on CCTV. Discarded clothes were also found on the beach near her house. This co-incided with other footage of the suspect.
  In the McCann case apparently, witnesses also saw the parents carrying a large bag, this was said by Kate in her book about when they were questioned by police, she said it was 'nonsense'.

[Brietta]

Yes thanks for confirming there is nothing to prove there is anything that exactly mirrors the child's disappearance.

You have to employ your imagination at this stage and pretend it does.

There was DNA from Aaron Campbell on the dead child that linked him to the crime, but you just keep on pretending if it makes you feel better.

We know what happened to Alesha and we know who was responsible.

We know that the perpetrator entered her home when she was on holiday and took her from her bed.  We know that he left no trace of his presence.  We know that there were no witnesses to his entry ... and we know that there were no witnesses to his exit.

We do not know what happened to Madeleine.  Nor do we know who was responsible.

But we do know that the perpetrator entered her home when she was on holiday and took her from her bed.  We know that no trace was left of his or her presence.  We know that there were no witnesses to entry ... and we know there were no witnesses to exit.

Abductors are rarely seen at the time ... it is only when the absence of their victim is discovered that it is realised a crime has occurred ... the circumstances surrounding Madeleine and Alesha's disappearances are mirror images of each other.

[Lace]

Really. I thought she was abducted?

Correct,  glad you agree 

[Brietta]

Really. I thought she was abducted?

Have your posts on the forum been supporting the fact that Madeleine was abducted?

[Brietta]

There was also a figure seen on the beach carrying a large bag, this figure ( Campbell) was also on CCTV. Discarded clothes were also found on the beach near her house. This co-incided with other footage of the suspect.
  In the McCann case apparently, witnesses also saw the parents carrying a large bag, this was said by Kate in her book about when they were questioned by police, she said it was 'nonsense'.

Kate certainly ridiculed the second of the statements you have posted along with some other myths ... but would you have a cite supporting your first?

[Eleanor]

Definitely not, but yours have, hence my surprise to read you finally admit "We do not know what happened to Madeleine."

Are you now saying that you do know what happened? You must do with a statement like that.

Jolly old semantics again, with a bit of cherry picking thrown in.

[Brietta]

Definitely not, but yours have, hence my surprise to read you finally admit "We do not know what happened to Madeleine."

Are you now saying that you do know what happened? You must do with a statement like that.

I know what the evidence says and I know that the Portuguese and English police are presently following it.  But I do not know what happened to Madeleine and I will hazard a guess that neither do you.

[Eleanor]

Why are you choosing to tell me? Do you have a fondness for Cheeky Monkeys?

I prefer Chimps myself.

[Brietta]

I know what didn't happen and even Jim Gamble is coming round to that way of thinking. 

I have read your posts on here and in my opinion they reflect many things of which knowledge is not one imo.

[Brietta]

So do I:
"From everything that was exposed from the AUTOS, we conclude that:
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;

B) It was performed a simulation of kidnapping;

C) In order to avoid the death [alarm] of the minor before 22H00, it was created a situation of the children's surveillance by the McCann while the children slept;

D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;

E) At this moment, there seems that there aren't strong indicia that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;

F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred."

I don't know what they're following but I always bear that evidence in mind.

Ouch ... is that taken from the convicted torturer Tavares de Almeida's interim report ... prior to the professionally competent police taking over?

It certainly does not reflect what the current investigations are doing ... but it certainly shows up how the Amaral investigators screwed up the case to the extent they couldn't even determine what crime had been committed against Madeleine.

[Erngath]

Its a report of what Gerry said, not an interpretation of what he may or may not have known.

But it is being used to prove what he knew.
Best tell Cheeky Monkey who "knows" that it proves he knew!

[Eleanor]

Ain't I one lucky chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) in that case. If only you knew your monkeys, in the way you think you know your abductors.

I can promise you that you will never make a Chimp.

[Erngath]

This chimp graduated in Architectural Joinery. You don't get in unless you're in the real Chimp club.

Don't make promises that you cannot keep.

Did you attend the Glasgow College of Building?
One of my sons did.
I think it amalgamated with Strathclyde university?
It's all a long time ago.

[sadie]

Whether it was 11, 12 or 1AM is of little difference IMO. The critical point IMO is that Gerry appeared to be claiming that he KNEW paedophile gangs were operating in Portugal and he thought they had abducted his daughter. The bit I can't understand is, if he really did believe that, why did he abandon his children in an unlocked apartment?

Ever thought that it could be new news to him?

Ever thought that perhaps he was vocally worrying about the possibility of a paedophile and one of the locals or OC staff had just told him that it was possible cos there were paedophile gangs were operating in PT.