The Netflix documentary featured contributions by the first person to be made an arguido, Robert Murat. Portuguese media began promoting stories which cast doubt on the McCanns’ abduction claims within 24hrs of Madeleine’s disappearance, e.g. “a badly told story” & “they were engaged in swinging”. Despite that, the PJ elected, within days, to interrogate Murat based on his seemingly suspicious behaviour & various allegations made by other parties.In the Netflix documentary when asked ... Gerry McCann defended the right of an accused person to the presumption of innocence.
Murat claimed in Netflix the PJ wanted him to sign a confession (content not disclosed) but stated the police were attempting to frame him. Had he “confessed” in May 2007 & actually been successfully prosecuted without any forensic evidence for involvement in kidnapping Madeleine, what does this forum think PJ & the McCanns would have done to continue the search for Madeleine? Furthermore, what would the attitude of both the Portuguese & UK public/media been to this hypothetical confession?
In the Netflix documentary when asked ... Gerry McCann defended the right of an accused person to the presumption of innocence.
Sadly that is not a right that either he or Kate have been afforded by some who have attacked them and their efforts to find Madeleine vociferously and continually for nearly twelve years.
Even if Murat had been convicted solely on the alleged 'confession' without anything else to back it up I think the Portuguese and UK public/media would have swallowed the bait and believed the outcome ... just as I think the majority of the Portuguese public/media believed in Leonor Cipriano's guilt.
As a result of which no-one has ever contemplated looking for Joana Cipriano despite the fact there was nothing to indicate her death.
I don't think that Kate and Gerry McCann would have been able to keep on looking for Madeleine if Murat had signed that confession.
In the Netflix documentary when asked ... Gerry McCann defended the right of an accused person to the presumption of innocence.
Sadly that is not a right that either he or Kate have been afforded by some who have attacked them and their efforts to find Madeleine vociferously and continually for nearly twelve years.
Even if Murat had been convicted solely on the alleged 'confession' without anything else to back it up I think the Portuguese and UK public/media would have swallowed the bait and believed the outcome ... just as I think the majority of the Portuguese public/media believed in Leonor Cipriano's guilt.
As a result of which no-one has ever contemplated looking for Joana Cipriano despite the fact there was nothing to indicate her death.
I don't think that Kate and Gerry McCann would have been able to keep on looking for Madeleine if Murat had signed that confession.
What did come to light in the documentary was that, when asked why the parent’s friends had said he was at the Ocean Club on the night Madeleine disappeared, Murat answered angrily but was afraid to express fully his opinion and that the parents PIs had been asked to investigate Murat to the exclusion of other leads. Combine that with what we already know from Bilton about one of the McCann team offering access to the parents for dirt on Murat and it would appear someone had it in for Murat and it certainly wasn’t only the PJ.
IMO Murat, unlike the Ciprianos, would have been able to acquire the appropriate legal assistance from the outset to fight/appeal any hypothetical conviction. I think this would have brought the investigative methods & failures of the PJ to the forefront at a much earlier stage, probably to Murat's benefit.In time honoured fashion the Judicial police had already begun the shredding of Murat's good name with leaks to the press ... what stopped that process?
As a hypothetical potential miscarriage of justice, imo the focus would have fallen on the PJ rather than the missing child (Madeleine this time). In those circumstances I do not believe the literary substance would have facilitated the publishing of books on the case by certain ex-judicial officers.
However, I do believe that the UK public would have been far more sympathetic to the parents & certainly more supportive of a continued search for her & subsequent involvement of the Met.
I’d like to know why no sceptics on here seem remotely interested in questioning Murat’s truthfulness, unlike their relentless doubting of every word uttered by the McCanns and their friends. If the McCanns haven’t been cleared then neither has Murat!I wouldn't presume to question Murat's statements given under oath but the record is that he did make quite a few changes over time.
I’d like to know why no sceptics on here seem remotely interested in questioning Murat’s truthfulness, unlike their relentless doubting of every word uttered by the McCanns and their friends. If the McCanns haven’t been cleared then neither has Murat!
Murat's house, car & clothes didn't smell like death for starters.
Murat's house, car & clothes didn't smell like death for starters.
How many people have been publicly supportive of him?
Murat's house, car & clothes didn't smell like death for starters.So why did he remain an arguido after the dogs “cleared” him?
Whose house did?
The McCanns. Eddie alerted to wardrobe. Keela didn't so that ruled out blood. Eddie alerted to their clothes. Keela didnt!One little caveat. It wasn’t the McCanns house and had had countless guests staying in it over the years.
The McCanns. Eddie alerted to wardrobe. Keela didn't so that ruled out blood. Eddie alerted to their clothes. Keela didnt!
One little caveat. It wasn’t the McCanns house and had had countless guests staying in it over the years.In particular, the apartment was occupied in the period after Madeleine's disappearance and Eddie's visit.
In particular, the apartment was occupied in the period after Madeleine's disappearance and Eddie's visit.
Unless it was by a cadaver then it’s irrelevant.So if a dog detects cadaver odour the. that means a cadaver was definitely situated in the place the dog alerted to does it? No such thing as transferral?
Somebody else died in the apartment. Furniture/items moved from a cadaver property to that apartment. Somebody touched a cadaver then entered the apartment and transferred. No evidence! Only one person disappeared from that apartment. Evidence suggests that person being the cadaver source if you believe the police dogs. If you are calling the dogs unreliable like Gerry (Mark Harrison recommended the best dogs be used!) then you won't believe it. But when crime scene photos corroborate dog alerts then police IMO will believe something happened in the apartment that resulted in a death on 3 May 2007. Prime suspect Smithman then hid the evidence! Enter SY searching nearby wasteland to that sighting.I’ve scrutinised the crime scene photos and can see no evidence of a cadaver, so to use a popular expression on this forum I’d have to that the post quoted above is a load of cobblers.
Q: I know you don’t want to go into detail but are there more forensic tests, is that what is going on?
MR: I’m not going to talk about detail of the type of work going on but there are critical lines of enquiry
of great interest to ourselves and our Portuguese counterparts and there are some significant
investigative avenues we are pursuing that we see as very worthwhile.
The cadaver, if any, could have been implanted.
The cadaver, if any, could have been implanted.
The cadaver, if any, could have been implanted.
Covering all the bases there.
So you agree that Eddie May have alerted to cadaver .
Covering all the bases there.Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, we will never know and that is why the alerts are completely irrelevant. IMO.
So you agree that Eddie May have alerted to cadaver .
Eddie alerted to what he had been trained to alert to, blood that had been there and then removed, or blood in garden fertiliser walked in from the garden, probably why he alerted in the garden as well IMO
Eddie alerted to what he had been trained to alert to, blood that had been there and then removed, or blood in garden fertiliser walked in from the garden, probably why he alerted in the garden as well IMO
So nobody had bled in the other apartments or trampled fertiliser through the apartment from the garden?Does Eddie alert to the scent of blood? Yes. Did he alert in the other apartments? No. Therefore we can deduce no one ever shed any blood in any of the other apartments, ever. Amazing isn’t it? Perhaps if he’d been encouraged a bit more he might have detected some.
Murat was definitely not pleased with the McCann's friends, was he? He made it clear he thought they were trying to implicate him.I rather thought it was the Judicial police he was somewhat miffed with; he did have this to say about his interrogation ... "“They wanted me to confess, I actually felt I was being set up.” Robert Murat: Netflix
I imagine they were pretty uncomfortable at having to accuse him to his face. It shows that the PJ ddn't concentrate solely on the McCanns all that early on though. That confrontation took place on 11th July and was both preceeded and followed by further questioning pf Robert Mural.Why do you think they might "have been uncomfortable? ... I think the three McCann friends invited to the 'confrontation' with Murat were singled out for 'special treatment' for some reason or other.
Anyone who has seen the documentary has seem Murat being questioned about the friends identification. If you haven’t seen it can I suggest you do.Avoidance. I watched the documentary and I don’t recall Murat saying the McCanns’ friends were shifty. You claimed he certainly did. I believe you are mistaken.
Why do you think they might "have been uncomfortable? ... I think the three McCann friends invited to the 'confrontation' with Murat were singled out for 'special treatment' for some reason or other.
Why them?
Many other people reported seeing him outside the apartment ... why weren't they invited along to "confront him to his face"?(http://i.prcdn.co/img?regionKey=s%2boX9ZgYf39JkB48GrcLUA%3d%3d)Expatriate Mr Murat has always insisted he was with his mother.
Now many in Praia da Luz believe that the eight witnesses who say they saw Mr Murat could have confused him with Mr Symington.
The resemblance has emerged just two weeks after police revealed that one of the McCanns’ friends, 41-yearold medical researcher David Payne, could also have been mistaken for Mr Murat when Madeleine vanished.
The lookalikes could force police into a total rethink of their eight month investigation.
https://www.pressreader.com/
I have never understood why it should have been considered suspicious for 'Murat' to be seen outside the apartment in any case ... he did live nearby after all.
I think that if he had been there given the nature of the man we would have known about, it for the simple reason he would have assisted with searches or perhaps translated for the GNR ... I don't think he would have held back ... and I think he probably greatly regrets ever having helped out when he did get the opportunity the next morning, when he found out what had gone on.
It must be difficult to call someone a liar to their face.
In my opinion four of those eight witnesses were a figment of journalistic imagination. Unless you can name them?
One of the four changed her mind, leaving just three for the confrontation.
Does Eddie alert to the scent of blood? Yes. Did he alert in the other apartments? No. Therefore we can deduce no one ever shed any blood in any of the other apartments, ever. Amazing isn’t it? Perhaps if he’d been encouraged a bit more he might have detected some.
It must be difficult to call someone a liar to their face.Two things we do know from this episode is that
In my opinion four of those eight witnesses were a figment of journalistic imagination. Unless you can name them?
One of the four changed her mind, leaving just three for the confrontation.
Two things we do know from this episode is thatSince I never considered Mr Murat guilty of anything, I never paid much attention to this.
- the three friends would not have mistaken David Payne for Murat.
- Jane Tanner did not claim to have seen Murat.
Make of that what you will
Really not much profit in providing cites for a figment of "Journalistic imagination" so I'm afraid you will have to make do with the original cite of eight. But anyone truly interested can easily google ... for example, the barrister, the nanny, the holidaymaker or even the oft quoted ocean club employee who apparently got it wrong.
Why were only three of the eight who said they saw Murat asked to face the difficulty of calling him a liar to his face?
But I reiterate ... what could possibly be considered suspicious about a near neighbour showing up on the street to find out what the fuss was all about.
Two things we do know from this episode is that
- the three friends would not have mistaken David Payne for Murat.
- Jane Tanner did not claim to have seen Murat.
Make of that what you will
Really not much profit in providing cites for a figment of "Journalistic imagination" so I'm afraid you will have to make do with the original cite of eight. But anyone truly interested can easily google ... for example, the barrister, the nanny, the holidaymaker or even the oft quoted ocean club employee who apparently got it wrong.
Why were only three of the eight who said they saw Murat asked to face the difficulty of calling him a liar to his face?
But I reiterate ... what could possibly be considered suspicious about a near neighbour showing up on the street to find out what the fuss was all about.
There are no barristers, nannies or holiday makers in the files who claimed to have seen Murat. Therefore it would have been impossible for the PJ to invite them to the confrontation.Oh 'Google' doesn't work for you? ... it works fine for me.
You haven't got a clue LOL - the dogs don't sniff every inch of the apartment searching for blood. Keela the blood dog is only used if Eddie alerts and then she goes to that alert area looking for blood. She doesn't go sniffing every inch of the apartment for blood traces.
Eddie alerts to blood too, so how do you explain Eddie not alerting to blood in any of the other apartments?
Why do you think Eddie alerted to items and locations associated to the parents and no one else ?
I believe Eddie alerted to blood, which had been there and taken away. Eddie wouldn't have bothered with the McCann's bedroom if Grime hadn't kept calling him back, they he barked probably because there was a faint scent coming from the wardrobe where dirty washing had been stored. The clothes, I wouldn't call that an alert, Eddie sniffed them passed by them then suddenly barked picking them up in his mouth as if playing with them. Cuddle cat, well Eddie would have had plenty of time to alert to CC he picked it up and tossed it away. The car? come on do you honestly think the McCann's stored Madeline's body in a fridge? and then put her in the car to transport her somewhere with all the journalists following them? IMO
Firstly no I don’t think the parents moved the body after May 3rd.
Secondly don’t you think that all the other apartments at some point had items with blood on them that had been taken away or dirty washing stored in their cupboards? When Eddie barks that is an alert, that he picked the items up is irrelevant.
As to the bedroom are you accusing Grime of consciously cuing the dog ?
Firstly no I don’t think the parents moved the body after May 3rd.
Secondly don’t you think that all the other apartments at some point had items with blood on them that had been taken away or dirty washing stored in their cupboards? When Eddie barks that is an alert, that he picked the items up is irrelevant.
As to the bedroom are you accusing Grime of consciously cuing the dog ?
Oh 'Google' doesn't work for you? ... it works fine for me.
I wonder if it would be possible to move off deflecting from the issue of the Murat interview and get back on track?
Grime had to keep calling Eddie back to the bedroom. Did he do that in any of the other apartments?
If you mean newspaper reports, were any printed before 11th July 2007? Most of these stories seem to have emerged in December of that year.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-six-key-witnesses-cast-doubt-over-robert-murats-alibi-6627833.html
You said;
Many other people reported seeing him outside the apartment ... why weren't they invited along to "confront him to his face"?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10623.msg517072#msg517072
In my opinion the answer is that the PJ didn't know about these people so they couldn't have invited them.
That isn't deflecting, it's answering imo.
That’s be clear, are you accusing Grime of manufacturing an alert ?
Found this -
Not really—especially if a lot of time has elapsed since the body was removed from the scene. Cadaver dogs can find the remains of people who have been dead for years or even decades. But it’s much harder for the dogs if the bulk of the remains are gone. In that case, they can pick up the scent from small amounts of body tissue, like a blood stain or nail clippings, or even from materials that came into contact with the tissue. But in the absence of an actual body, the smell of death will dissipate. There’s speculation that Madeleine died on the night her parents reported her disappearance—which would mean that she passed away four months ago. It’s not clear if a detectable scent could linger on her mother’s clothes for all that time
Here's the link to that article- https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/09/can-you-trust-a-cadaver-dog-if-there-s-no-cadaver.html
Not sure who this person is or his expertise.
Now again, are you accusing Grime of manufacturing alerts ?
Not sure who this person is or his expertise.
Now again, are you accusing Grime of manufacturing alerts ?
Not sure who this person is or his expertise.
Now again, are you accusing Grime of manufacturing alerts ?
Read the bottom of the article.
As for the 'are you accusing Grime of manufacturing alerts?' You said - Firstly no I don’t think the parents moved the body after May 3rd. end of quote, so I say right back at you. IMO
I don't think Martin Grime is bright enough to manufacture alerts. Subconciously is another thing.
‘It’s not clear if a detectable scent could linger on her mother’s clothes for all that time’ says the man with no expertise.
As to the car both Keela and Eddie alerted to the car then it’s reasonable to assume that it was to blood.
the dogs alerted ..fact...the question is ..what is the value of those alerts...ask the experts
Let’s be clear. If it is being said that Grime kept bringing Eddie back to the bedroom or the car you are accusing him of consciously cuing him.
As to the dig at Grime’s intelligence, that’s rather below you.
Horses for Courses. Martin Grime is a Dog Handler, and remained a Constable throughout his Police Service. Have I accused him of dishonesty?
Do you think Grime deliberately brought Eddie back to the parent’s car and bedroom, if so then yes you are accusing him of dishonesty.
I think Martin Grime was being over diligent, but only in those two places.
‘It’s not clear if a detectable scent could linger on her mother’s clothes for all that time’ says the man with no expertise.
As to the car both Keela and Eddie alerted to the car then it’s reasonable to assume that it was to blood.
Do you think Grime deliberately brought Eddie back to the parent’s car and bedroom, if so then yes you are accusing him of dishonesty.
I believe Eddie alerted to blood, which had been there and taken away. Eddie wouldn't have bothered with the McCann's bedroom if Grime hadn't kept calling him back, they he barked probably because there was a faint scent coming from the wardrobe where dirty washing had been stored. The clothes, I wouldn't call that an alert, Eddie sniffed them passed by them then suddenly barked picking them up in his mouth as if playing with them. Cuddle cat, well Eddie would have had plenty of time to alert to CC he picked it up and tossed it away. The car? come on do you honestly think the McCann's stored Madeline's body in a fridge? and then put her in the car to transport her somewhere with all the journalists following them? IMO
Eddie's behaviour changed as soon as he entered that apartment. If you think it was for blood traces found between/under a tile behind the sofa then I disagree. Eddie was professionally trained to detect cadaver odour (all cadaver dogs alert to blood). His first alert was at the wardrobe. Keela the blood dog didn't alert there! Keela did not alert to blood on clothes. They work as a team.
Eddie's behaviour changed as soon as he entered that apartment. If you think it was for blood traces found between/under a tile behind the sofa then I disagree. Eddie was professionally trained to detect cadaver odour (all cadaver dogs alert to blood). His first alert was at the wardrobe. Keela the blood dog didn't alert there! Keela did not alert to blood on clothes. They work as a team.
Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.
Keela wouldn't alert to something which had had blood on it and had been taken away, Eddie would IMO
I’m afraid you start from the premise of the parents are innocent and try to fit the evidence accordingly.And you don’t do that in reverse I suppose? In spades?
Now you are going to argue that Eddie wouldn't alert to something which had had blood on it and had been taken away so that only the scent remained aren't you? It just goes around in a circle IMO
I agree with Martin Grime that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour in his alerts.
I agree with Martin Grime that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour in his alerts.
Of course he brought Eddie back deliberately, he was calling him back what else could he be doing? I'm not accusing him of dishonestly, just that he wanted Eddie to have another sniff. It comes to something when you can't debate without someone trying to accuse you of things. I think Eddie was getting a bit fed up if you ask me and alerted to a scent probably something that had been on the floor or in the wardrobe. IMO
Yes he did in his professional opinion and he's not allowed to talk about his case when contacted for the latest podcast entitled Eddie and Keela.Who was that guy appearing in the Netflix documentary going under the name of Martin Grime?
Cite for this ridiculous post
We've seen the video of Eddie in action made in Luz ... and we have seen the video of Eddie in action shortly after in Haute de la Garenne.
Eddie did not alert to any of the clothing he alerted to in the gymnasium despite having had unlimited access to it all in the McCann villa where he did not alert.
I think observing the videos for comparison purposes ... and giving thought as to why the same clothes ignored by the dog provoked a reaction when boxed and transferred to another certainly gives food for thought.
As far as the Murat situation is concerned ... he was an arguido who was therefore entitled to have his lawyer ( a very good one I believe) involved and present at searches and everything involving his client.
What I wonder would he have made of clothing which prompted nothing from a dog being moved from one locale to another where a reaction was made? 'Mincemeat' I think is the word I'm looking for.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Who was that guy appearing in the Netflix documentary going under the name of Martin Grime?
eddie also found a coconut in Jersey
eddie also found a coconut in Jersey
Eddie and Grime went to the Theresa Parker case in September 2007 and he alerted in the garage and to a house next door when somebody had perished in a fire. He was shown in court showing off his cadaver scenting abilities. Next you will be saying there's no blood traces in a jail LOL. Eddie didn't detect blood in the jail but the cadaver odour he is trained to find. Eddie was working fine in 2007. The husband was convicted of killing her before the body was later found.
The relevance to the Murat Netflix interview in any of the above is ... what?
Coconut @)(++(*The rather infamous JAR6 as labelled in evidence coconut shell, I think it was called.
Coconut bollox!So Eddie alerts to wood, not coconuts. Thanks for clarifying.
They didn't know what it was but concluded as probably wood.
2.145 A letter from Dr X at the Oxford laboratory was sent on
1 May 2008 addressed to DCO HARPER confirming the work carried out on
Exhibit JAR/6 and the conclusion that it was not bone but almost certainly wood.
Teeth & bone fragments were found during the excavations at Haut De La Garrene.
naturally shed baby teeth...were the bones confirmed as human...not bad for close on a hundred grand....nothing the dog found was of any useEveryday the police will be doing unsuccessful searches. It is a matter of fact so get over it.
naturally shed baby teeth...were the bones confirmed as human...not bad for close on a hundred grand....nothing the dog found was of any use
The point stands, human remnants were discovered. How they were shed is neither here nor there.Let’s not forget the sex tissue. @)(++(*
Let’s not forget the sex tissue. @)(++(*
The point stands, human remnants were discovered. How they were shed is neither here nor there.
their value to the investigation is neither here nor there...thats the important point....they were of none ...do you have a cite that the bones were human...
There were 3 possibly human bone fragments. You already know that.
Eddie done his job, he alerted to human remains, that is a fact.
3 possibly human bone fragmnets...so not confirmed..baby teeth are not human remains....that is a fact
There were 3 possibly human bone fragments. You already know that.
Eddie done his job, he alerted to human remains, that is a fact. 65 human teeth is no small amount.
65 baby teeth ....from an orphanage...each child sheds 20.......if they are naturally shed they are not human remains
What are they then?
So.....what are they then?
deciduous teeth ..naturally shed
They are human body parts, ie, human remains.
no...human remains are body parts from a deceased person
I hadn't planned to have sex with you?Thank God for small mercies.
There were 3 possibly human bone fragments. You already know that.LOL at possibly human.
Eddie done his job, he alerted to human remains, that is a fact. 65 human teeth is no small amount.
LOL at possibly human.
Are the people those teeth belonged to still alive?
They almost certainly were when the teeth were lost
A Murat/Netflix thread seems to have become a dog thread. Perhaps the off topic dog posts should be moved to a thread of their own?
Another reason might be, because Murat doesn't hide behind a professional spokesman, or come across as a shifty lying b.........
But you can't be sure if the person(s) whose teeth they were are still alive.
Shed teeth are dead teeth. Expired human body parts. That makes Eddies alert correct.
Have you ever heard him express any genuine concern about Madeleine, apart from wanting her found to clear his name?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
Where/when has he expressed this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
by DAVID JONES
Last updated at 11:06 02 June 2007
snipped
"I'm going through exactly the same experience as the McCanns, so I can empathise with them,' he told me, seemingly unable to understand that no one - not even a man perhaps wrongly accused of child abduction - could begin to understand their torment.
"Whenever there's a sighting of a little girl, my hopes rise. And when it's not Madeleine, they sink, just like the McCanns'. Why? Because if they find Madeleine my name will be cleared."
I fail to see any significance here.
Is this supposed to make me suspicious of RM? Because it doesn't. All he tried to do was help the investigation, only to be fingered by some interfering journalist.
What's so amusing about that?The dog alerted to bones that may or may not be human, the same dog that ONLY alerts to human remains. Oh, and wood. I think that’s quite amusing.
He only mentioned being accused by friends of the McCanns, no-one else, in the Netflix documentary. There were at least 5 other people who independently said they saw him near 5A on the night of 3rd May. There were serious written accusations against him & an anonymous phone call - none of which was mentioned in the documentary; he was portrayed as a victim of collusion by the Tapas 9 - which he wasn't. He really is the elephant in the room imo.
The dog alerted to bones that may or may not be human, the same dog that ONLY alerts to human remains. Oh, and wood. I think that’s quite amusing.
How do you know he alerted to the bones, or the wood?How does anyome know what he was alerting to? Could have been bones, not necessarily human, could have been baby teeth, could have been wood, such a precision instrument.
He may have been alerting to the dead teeth.
How does anyome know what he was alerting to? Could have been bones, not necessarily human, could have been baby teeth, could have been wood, such a precision instrument.
I'm going with teeth, and in the McCann case, I'm sticking with cadaver odour, the alerts are suggestive of cadaver scent, the kid is still missing, and her parents are shifty af.You will be proven wrong, of that I am quite certain. I am also fairly certain that when that happens you still won’t accept it. Such is life.
I'll be proven wrong when the boys at the yard catch that elusive paedo abductor, who resembled Maddie's dad.
You will be proven wrong, of that I am quite certain. I am also fairly certain that when that happens you still won’t accept it. Such is life.
No I won't.I rest my case.
I rest my case.
Have you ever heard him express any genuine concern about Madeleine, apart from wanting her found to clear his name?
You know I'm right.I know I’m right. Your turn.
I know I’m right. Your turn.
You can't be right, because I am.Ditto.
Why should he ?
His apparent lack of concern for Madeleine, e.g not really searching, was inconsistent with his level of involvement in police affairs and choosing to fraternise with media.
No it wasn’t.
We'll have to agree to differ, then. If you have the time, you could add up the number of times he refers to Madeleine by her name in interviews over the last 12 years.....
Why do you find it strange that an individual who has no connection to a child would not mention her in interviews about his ordeal ?
He felt connected because he had a daughter of almost the same age as Madeleine. Why speak about everything but Madeleine?
Perhaps because it was obvious that the parents via their friends were trying to fit him up and there could be only one reason for that.
We'll have to agree to differ, then. If you have the time, you could add up the number of times he refers to Madeleine by her name in interviews over the last 12 years.....Perhaps his world is not consumed with the girls disappearance.
Perhaps his world is not consumed with the girls disappearance.
When he was first given arguido status (14/5/07), the only person connected to the McCanns who had possibly provided the PJ with eye-witness evidence against him was Jane - and the PJ were very sceptical of Jane's testimony. Presumably all the other evidence PJ had accrued was disclosed to his lawyer and they were looking for an abductor at that stage. Why blame the parents for the actions of the PJ?
The parent’s friends said he was around apartment 5a on the night of the 3rd. Murat himself and people who were there said he wasn’t. Even Kate in her book doesn’t find a reasonable explanation for this anomaly. That one person misidentified him is understandable but three, and all from the same group, is simply stretching incredulity.
What is beyond doubt is that by their comments the friends of the McCanns effectively put Murat in an impossible position.
Can we really be sure to know what Kate is meaning by "That one person misidentified him is understandable but three, and all from the same group, is simply stretching incredulity"?
Is she really turning against her friends or is she supporting them?
In my opinion she is saying that one person might be mistaken but not three. She seems to think that them all belonging to the same group adds credibility, but I would say that detracts from it. Three unconnected witnesses would be more credible imo. After all, nine people from the same group testified that the alarn was raised at 10pm and that raised suspicions.
In my opinion she is saying that one person might be mistaken but not three. She seems to think that them all belonging to the same group adds credibility, but I would say that detracts from it. Three unconnected witnesses would be more credible imo. After all, nine people from the same group testified that the alarn was raised at 10pm and that raised suspicions.
Apologies I meant it takes credibility away.Well isn't that what Kate is saying about her friends too?
In my opinion she is saying that one person might be mistaken but not three. She seems to think that them all belonging to the same group adds credibility, but I would say that detracts from it. Three unconnected witnesses would be more credible imo. After all, nine people from the same group testified that the alarn was raised at 10pm and that raised suspicions.
Damn right when most of them said they didn't check the time but still said it was 22:00. Gerry gave a time of 22:03 and Matt said 21:50 in the interview where he was accused of abducting Maddy - they were both wearing watches which makes it very interesting 8(>(( Which time is correct? A media report said Kate left at 21:51 to check so that leads to Matt's time.Faithlilly is always banging on about Gerry saying the alarm was raised at 10.13, so does that not negate the your and G-Unit’s argument?
Faithlilly is always banging on about Gerry saying the alarm was raised at 10.13, so does that not negate the your and G-Unit’s argument?
I was referring to the agreed timeline, which was not adhered to by all the individuals. Gerry McCann;I don’t understand the point you are trying to make I’m afraid.
4th May about 22:00
10th May; without anything to signal, it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children.........About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness
No one else noticed Kate's latemess, not even Fiona who was sitting beside her. Matthew said;
10th May; she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make I’m afraid.
Why would they all agree that the alarn was raised at 10pm then change it in their individual interviews? That suggests that that they didn't really agree.Which also suggests there was no collusion.
Which also suggests there was no collusion.
Which also suggests there was no collusion.
The interesting question is why nine people allowed a timeline to be produced and given to the police when they privately disagreed with what it said?
They probably didn't have time to consider it all in minor detail. You are suggesting that they did this on purpose. Not on, in my opinion.
Which also suggests there was no collusion.....or colluded to ensure disparity.
....or colluded to ensure disparity.
....or colluded to ensure disparity.In short anything they do is evidence of collusion, whether it’s all singing from the same hymn sheet or contradicting each other. I should have realised that. @)(++(*
In short anything they do is evidence of collusion, whether it’s all singing from the same hymn sheet or contradicting each other. I should have realised that. @)(++(*I know, hilarious. Those emojis.......crack me up every time since the 90's.
At the time they were probably more concerned with what the consequences of their lax childminding would be if it was ever made public.Come on, Angelo, it was only like having your dinner at the bottom of the garden. Besides, they had a really good system in place, it was working well........
Come on, Angelo, it was only like having your dinner at the bottom of the garden. Besides, they had a really good system in place, it was working well........
I know, hilarious. Those emojis.......crack me up every time since the 90's.&%%6 Let’s have our cake and eat it. Whatever they do it’s evidence of guilt, like I said. Nice one, thanks 8((()*/
If you're going to collude you have to make sure it fits the narrative: if the narrative is 'everyone's looking after everyone else's kids to facilitate quaffage & scoffage', then let's keep it tight and get the times nailed; if the narrative is obfuscation, desperate arse-covering or revisionism, then 'Derek went at 6, then Sally went for a wazz after Chad returned....no hang on, Chad had a wazz at Terry's, then Karen checked on Colin's kids, but that was after Tony saw a man carrying an inflatable penguin, etc, etc......
Not that I'm not suggesting any of those scenarios transpired; merely setting a scene :emoji eyebrow emoji:
&%%6 Let’s have our cake and eat it. Whatever they do it’s evidence of guilt, like I said. Nice one, thanks 8((()*/
PS: Emojis in the ‘90s? *&^^&
You're the expert.And don’t you forget it! 8)--))
And don’t you forget it! 8)--))
You're the expert.
Perhaps not.I knew that. I invented them. That's why I hate them so much. Like the despair Tim Berners Lee feels when he sees how his brainchild has evolved in to a cesspit of human depravity, awash with porn, memes, cats, meme of cats and people berating each other ad infinitum on forums.
According to Wiki. emojis date from 1997 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji
It depends on which is worse. Being the parent of a missing child or being convicted of a crime you didn't commit, or both.
Perhaps not.Were you using emojis is 1997? Were you even using the internet in 1997? Doubtful....
According to Wiki. emojis date from 1997 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji
I knew that. I invented them. That's why I hate them so much. Like the despair Tim Berners Lee feels when he sees how his brainchild has evolved in to a cesspit of human depravity, awash with porn, memes, cats, meme of cats and people berating each other ad infinitum on forums.@)(++(* Why do you persist with this cesspit of human depravity I wonder? Why not paint a masterpiece or write some highbrow literature instead? 8)-)))
I unwittingly unleashed an unstoppable atrophy of written language.
Why not paint a masterpiece or write some highbrow literature instead?Could do both of those again, I suppose.
Could do both of those again, I suppose.Don’t let me stop you.
Perhaps not.
According to Wiki. emojis date from 1997 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji
Originating from emoticons which go back to the early 70s.I had a big yellow smiley face badge which my parent bought for me when we were visiting San Francisco in 1971, perhaps that’s where I get it from. ?{)(**