Goncalo Amaral.

[Venturi Swirl]

Whataboutery - the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.

Yet more deflection and changing the topic of argument, all in order to avoid answering questions you know would show your arguments to be flawed.

What "claims" did I present as "facts"? All I did was raise a few examples of where sceptics have often claimed members of the Tapas 7 were lying in order to protect/enforce the McCanns story. I raised them as examples of why sceptics often believe there was collusion among the group to create a false story. Something you didn't like me suggesting when I mentioned the word conspiracy. How does any of what you said in response detract from my point in that regard?

For the sake of moving forward, I then retracted the suggestion of any conspiracy (that you took such issue with), in order that you could go back to answering the original questions I asked. You still refuse to answer them, and the reasons for that are abundantly obvious IMO.

You'd have more chance of success trying to nail jelly to a wall than trying to nail down G-Unit to a straight answer on any of this.  IMO.

[G-Unit]

Maybe yes.  Maybe one of them remembered wrong.  Maybe both of them remembered wrong.  Maybe their interpretation of  what constitutes a fully open door differs by a matter of 20 to 30 degrees.  Maybe something was lost in translation.  The least plausible explanation is that one or both of them were deliberately lying about the exact degree of openness of the door.  Why would they do that?  Makes no sense whatosever.

If the door moved again between their visits then it was moved three times that night. If it didn't, the bedroom looked the same during Matt's check as they were during Kate's;

the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

None of which Matt saw, apparently, apart from the door.

[G-Unit]

Whataboutery - the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.

Yet more deflection and changing the topic of argument, all in order to avoid answering questions you know would show your arguments to be flawed.

What "claims" did I present as "facts"? All I did was raise a few examples of where sceptics have often claimed members of the Tapas 7 were lying in order to protect/enforce the McCanns story. I raised them as examples of why sceptics often believe there was collusion among the group to create a false story. Something you didn't like me suggesting when I mentioned the word conspiracy. How does any of what you said in response detract from my point in that regard?

For the sake of moving forward, I then retracted the suggestion of any conspiracy (that you took such issue with), in order that you could go back to answering the original questions I asked. You still refuse to answer them, and the reasons for that are abundantly obvious IMO.

You want me to speculate by presenting a theory concerning what happened on 3rd May, but I prefer not to do that because I don't have enough information. I feel under no obligation to explain to you why others say what they say. I can, and do explain just why some of the holiday group's testimony raises more questions than answers in MY mind.

[Mr Gray]

You want me to speculate by presenting a theory concerning what happened on 3rd May, but I prefer not to do that because I don't have enough information. I feel under no obligation to explain to you why others say what they say. I can, and do explain just why some of the holiday group's testimony raises more questions than answers in MY mind.

But.. You just don't know accurate those testimonys are.. You are making an assumption they are accurate

[Venturi Swirl]

If the door moved again between their visits then it was moved three times that night. If it didn't, the bedroom looked the same during Matt's check as they were during Kate's;

the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

None of which Matt saw, apparently, apart from the door.

aand this is important because…?

[Venturi Swirl]

You want me to speculate by presenting a theory concerning what happened on 3rd May, but I prefer not to do that because I don't have enough information. I feel under no obligation to explain to you why others say what they say. I can, and do explain just why some of the holiday group's testimony raises more questions than answers in MY mind.

But you do know Madeleine wasn’t abducted by a stranger, right?

[Ms Para glider]

You want me to speculate by presenting a theory concerning what happened on 3rd May, but I prefer not to do that because I don't have enough information. I feel under no obligation to explain to you why others say what they say. I can, and do explain just why some of the holiday group's testimony raises more questions than answers in MY mind.

It's pretty clear you don't want to present a theory. You appear to want to hide behind a fog of doubts and what-abouts. Micro-analysing and proclaiming any perceived discrepancy in the files, just so long as it reinforces the sceptics argument. But without having to commit to any specific "view" that you yourself might have to then defend.

I've no issue in people pointing out apparent discrepancies. But if you want to claim to be objective and impartial, you might consider trying to look for, and comment to that effect, possible explanations from both sides of the fence. Not every discrepancy is a lie.

And for the record, only one of the four questions I asked you required you to speculate upon a theory to answer it, that one was - "what is the motive?". The other three did not require any speculation. But IMO you've made it quite obvious that you don't want to address those uncomfortable flaws in your argument either.

So I won't hold my breath for an answer. Think I'll have a go at nailing this jelly to the wall instead... perhaps I'll try the 'Amaral' solution-to-everything and stick it in the freezer first. That might work!

[G-Unit]

It's pretty clear you don't want to present a theory. You appear to want to hide behind a fog of doubts and what-abouts. Micro-analysing and proclaiming any perceived discrepancy in the files, just so long as it reinforces the sceptics argument. But without having to commit to any specific "view" that you yourself might have to then defend.

I've no issue in people pointing out apparent discrepancies. But if you want to claim to be objective and impartial, you might consider trying to look for, and comment to that effect, possible explanations from both sides of the fence. Not every discrepancy is a lie.

And for the record, only one of the four questions I asked you required you to speculate upon a theory to answer it, that one was - "what is the motive?". The other three did not require any speculation. But IMO you've made it quite obvious that you don't want to address those uncomfortable flaws in your argument either.

So I won't hold my breath for an answer. Think I'll have a go at nailing this jelly to the wall instead... perhaps I'll try the 'Amaral' solution-to-everything and stick it in the freezer first. That might work!

If there was a death (and I don't know if there was) and a body was hidden then I can only assume the body couldn't be surrendered to the authorities.

[Venturi Swirl]

You want me to speculate by presenting a theory concerning what happened on 3rd May, but I prefer not to do that because I don't have enough information. I feel under no obligation to explain to you why others say what they say. I can, and do explain just why some of the holiday group's testimony raises more questions than answers in MY mind.

Do you think Amaral had enough information to present a theory?

[Ms Para glider]

I do find it amusing when sceptics constantly bandy around that phrase - "No evidence of an abduction!" - like they think this is some brilliant point they are making. It isn't, and what's funnier is that most of them don't even realise how weak their point actually is.

First of all, the statement itself is untrue. There IS evidence of an abduction. They are just choosing to believe that the people providing the supporting accounts of what was observed are all lying. The sceptics proclaim this as a "given", despite there being absolutely no proof to back the assertion up.

On the secondary count, the phrase offers a flawed promise. As much as some people will claim "I'm only pointing it out", the connotation of there being "no evidence" is deliberate. It is intended to imply that the prospect of an abduction taking place is therefore vastly dimished from what it otherwise should/would be when an abduction genuinely occurs. But the reality is, unless a witness actually sees an abduction taking place, there is rarely any "evidence" that a person has been abducted. By it's very nature, it's one of those crimes that leaves little evidential trace.

Someone is there one minute, then they are not. How can you "prove" they've been adbucted, if nobody saw it happen? The victim is not there to give an account of what happened to them, so what are you left with to find in terms of "evidence" of an abduction?

I'll open the question up to any sceptic who is willing to offer up their thoughts. "IF" Madeleine WAS abducted from 5A by someone like CB, what other evidence would you "expect" to have been found to indicate this is indeed what happened to her?

[Venturi Swirl]

^^^a question I have asked several times but unsurprisingly never received a sensible answer. 

[sadie]

So when Matt got there it was partly open;

it wasn't flat back against the wall, because that would have looked odd, it was just sort of halfway open
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

According to Kate, at 10pm;

the door to her children's bedroom was completely open
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

Do you think they were describing the same amount of openness?

There is a wardrobe immediately next to the open door of Madeleines bedroom.  Most serviceable wardrobes are 2 feet deep, altho they can be a tadge less deep for clothes to hang serviceably.  Upon entering, if wished, the door will open fully back against the RH wall.   

However there is no benefit from doing this because the pertinent gap for one to walk through is the distance between the LH part of the door frame and the rigid corner of the wardrobeo.   I doubt that the door was rarely open much more than the 45* - 60*  that gave full access

My guess is that normally the door would only be opened to about the corner of the wardrobe, because that was easiest and gave just as much space to walk though as if the door was fully opened to the RH wall.

IMO that 45* - 60* opening could easily be thought of as fully open by someone living there.  To someone visiting for maybe the first time it probably would appear part open because he couldn't see the wardrobe.   He didn't enter the room to see past the  part open door.


So to be honest, do we truly know what was meant?

-  by Matt when he said *halfway* open?
-  by Kate when she said *completely* open?


Without knowing, it is pointless arguing.


Please note:   
There isn't a plan that I would like to trust that gives the exact sizes and positions of the door, wall and corner of the wardrobe.  I have used my best guestimation of the likely open angle of the door for maximum clear width of entrance

[sadie]

I said independent.

This isn't exact, but it gives guidance.  It reinforces The Mccann statements as well.


 2941 to 2944 Witness testimony of Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira (bar worker who served McCanns)

11 Processos Vol XI Pages 2941 to 2944



[snip]

Questioned, he affirms that the group would normally consist of nine people (including Madeleines parents), and would normally dine around 20H30 and 20H40. They would not all arrive at once and before they all arrived, some would have cocktails. On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual.  [/snip]



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Also Stephen Cartenter affirms the rough time of arrival a the Tapas restaurant   Taken from Steel Magnolia.     



[- snip]
:3-Cartas Rogatorias File 3 Pages 31 - 56

RESTRICTED
Statement number S87B
Printed version of recorded documentSurname: CARPENTER
First name. STEPHEN



At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things, I vaguely remember that Gerry and Kate and other people from the group would leave the table in intervals (inaudible), I think it was to check on the children , but I do not remember with what frequency or how many times the people left the table to check on the children. We did not talk about the system for checking the children or the fact that they had left them alone in the apartment, it was only later upon hearing the news that I realised that they had left the children alone in the apartment and that they were regularly checking to see if they were all right.  [-/snip]

[G-Unit]

Do you think Amaral had enough information to present a theory?

The McCanns presented a theory and he presented a different one. Obviously they all thought they had enough information to do so.

[G-Unit]

This isn't exact, but it gives guidance.  It reinforces The Mccann statements as well.


 2941 to 2944 Witness testimony of Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira (bar worker who served McCanns)

11 Processos Vol XI Pages 2941 to 2944



[snip]

Questioned, he affirms that the group would normally consist of nine people (including Madeleines parents), and would normally dine around 20H30 and 20H40. They would not all arrive at once and before they all arrived, some would have cocktails. On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual.  [/snip]



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Also Stephen Cartenter affirms the rough time of arrival a the Tapas restaurant   Taken from Steel Magnolia.     



[- snip]
:3-Cartas Rogatorias File 3 Pages 31 - 56

RESTRICTED
Statement number S87B
Printed version of recorded documentSurname: CARPENTER
First name. STEPHEN



At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things, I vaguely remember that Gerry and Kate and other people from the group would leave the table in intervals (inaudible), I think it was to check on the children , but I do not remember with what frequency or how many times the people left the table to check on the children. We did not talk about the system for checking the children or the fact that they had left them alone in the apartment, it was only later upon hearing the news that I realised that they had left the children alone in the apartment and that they were regularly checking to see if they were all right.  [-/snip]

I notice neither of them support the group's statements about their arrival times.