Mark Williams-Thomas suggests Madeleine woke, wandered and was abducted.

[Brietta]

So you are implying Mrs. Fenn lied ?

Don't think so.

and children crying is hardly unusual, IS IT ?

Do not put words into my mouth.

I have said the police neglected to speak to Mrs Fenn ... who could have been a material witness for all they knew ... on the morning of the 4th of May.

I said Mrs Fenn gave no statement until the 20th of August.

How you can twist that to imply that I am accusing Mrs Fenn of any impropriety whatsoever is a bit of a mystery to me ... no doubt you will have an explanation?

[Brietta]

old people get confused

Mrs Fenn's niece is a case in point ... she was confused about the dates she had given in her original statement until careful questioning enabled her to realise it.

Four months after, was never an appropriate time to question a person who might have been a material witness in the case.

[Mr Gray]

I presume you are talking about yourself.

I was thinking more about you

[stephen25000]

I was thinking more about you

I'm younger than you dave.

[stephen25000]

Do not put words into my mouth.

I have said the police neglected to speak to Mrs Fenn ... who could have been a material witness for all they knew ... on the morning of the 4th of May.

I said Mrs Fenn gave no statement until the 20th of August.

How you can twist that to imply that I am accusing Mrs Fenn of any impropriety whatsoever is a bit of a mystery to me ... no doubt you will have an explanation?

Then be more careful in what you imply.

[Brietta]

Then be more careful in what you imply.

You were the one making the allegation without anything of substance whatsoever to support it.  I have noticed it is a particular posting technique used frequently by you when you are unable to refute an argument.
It is tiresome in its transparency.

Mrs Fenn might possibly have witnessed Madeleine's exit from the apartment had she woke and wandered, she might have noticed someone in conversation with her.
The point is ... she was not asked when it really mattered.

Taking a statement from her four months after the event was of absolutely no value whatsoever and merely serves to highlight in general the massive shortcomings in the Amaral investigation.

[stephen25000]

It has been shown that it is possible to lift the shutter from outside. 

Heriberto Janosch González has put forward the theory that Madeleine could have approached the window and has demonstrated that she could easily have been lifted out without the apartment being entered.

I don't think Madeleine could have exited through the front door without being taken through it by someone, and no-one has put forward a theory to explain how she could have gone that way on her own.

She could also have walked out of the apartment.

Basically, there is no evidence of how she disappeared.

[stephen25000]

You were the one making the allegation without anything of substance whatsoever to support it.  I have noticed it is a particular posting technique used frequently by you when you are unable to refute an argument.
It is tiresome in its transparency.

Mrs Fenn might possibly have witnessed Madeleine's exit from the apartment had she woke and wandered, she might have noticed someone in conversation with her.
The point is ... she was not asked when it really mattered.

Taking a statement from her four months after the event was of absolutely no value whatsoever and merely serves to highlight in general the massive shortcomings in the Amaral investigation.

I take your posts with barely a pinch of salt.

No matter how much you may protest, you are on here mere to defend the mccann's and push forward the abduction mantra proaganda.

[Brietta]

She could also have walked out of the apartment.

Basically, there is no evidence of how she disappeared.

How on earth can any evidence be found if no one looks for it?
Not even bothering to ask people resident in the same building if they had any sight of anything surely demonstrates negligence in the extreme.

Then if the Senior investigator has formulated his theory before even visiting the crime scene and never deviates from it ~ how can evidence relating to a perpetrator be expected to be found?


23 February 2009
Exclusive Interview to the Former PJ Coordinator Gonçalo Amaral

A collaborative interview by Duarte Levy, Joana Morais, Astro and Mercedes

All Rights Reserved © Joana Morais 2009

Transcript & Translation

**Snip
DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?

GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].

[Alice Purjorick]

How on earth can any evidence be found if no one looks for it?
Not even bothering to ask people resident in the same building if they had any sight of anything surely demonstrates negligence in the extreme.

Then if the Senior investigator has formulated his theory before even visiting the crime scene and never deviates from it ~ how can evidence relating to a perpetrator be expected to be found?


23 February 2009
Exclusive Interview to the Former PJ Coordinator Gonçalo Amaral

A collaborative interview by Duarte Levy, Joana Morais, Astro and Mercedes

All Rights Reserved © Joana Morais 2009

Transcript & Translation

**Snip
DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?

GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].

That view would appear not to be supported by the archiving process:
snip>>>>
"From the documentation, you will observe that during the investigation various possibilities were contemplated.
As such, consider:
1. abduction, for sexual exploration or other (e.g., later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide;
2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse;
3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse;"
>>>> snip

[stephen25000]

How on earth can any evidence be found if no one looks for it?
Not even bothering to ask people resident in the same building if they had any sight of anything surely demonstrates negligence in the extreme.

Then if the Senior investigator has formulated his theory before even visiting the crime scene and never deviates from it ~ how can evidence relating to a perpetrator be expected to be found?


23 February 2009
Exclusive Interview to the Former PJ Coordinator Gonçalo Amaral

A collaborative interview by Duarte Levy, Joana Morais, Astro and Mercedes

All Rights Reserved © Joana Morais 2009

Transcript & Translation

**Snip
DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?

GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].

Madeleine was searched from the start, with the assumption she was abducted.

Local police, holidaymakers, and residents gave up their time in a fruitless search for Madeleine, in the hours, days and weeks after she disappeared.

The focus on the patents came from UK police advising the PJ to investigate the parents, as would be standard procedure in the UK.

As to 'missing' evidence, that also applies by any logic to all the possible scenarios.

[Brietta]

That view would appear not to be supported by the archiving process:
snip>>>>
"From the documentation, you will observe that during the investigation various possibilities were contemplated.
As such, consider:
1. abduction, for sexual exploration or other (e.g., later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide;
2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse;
3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse;"
>>>> snip

I quoted from an interview given by the man himself ... I believe he is on record as making similar statements elsewhere ... and he was the man to know his own line of thinking n'est-ce pas?

[Brietta]

Madeleine was searched from the start, with the assumption she was abducted.

Local police, holidaymakers, and residents gave up their time in a fruitless search for Madeleine, in the hours, days and weeks after she disappeared.

The focus on the patents came from UK police advising the PJ to investigate the parents, as would be standard procedure in the UK.

As to 'missing' evidence, that also applies by any logic to all the possible scenarios.

MWT is rather scathing about the missing evidence and the manner of it ... do read up on it.

[stephen25000]

MWT is rather scathing about the missing evidence and the manner of it ... do read up on it.

You can type all you wish.

It is quite evident, as I have predicted all along, SY don't have a clue. The Portuguese don't have a clue.


How about you Brietta ?

[pathfinder73]

I quoted from an interview given by the man himself ... I believe he is on record as making similar statements elsewhere ... and he was the man to know his own line of thinking n'est-ce pas?

Any good detective would have suspicions about them after hearing their unbelievable story and crying abduction. The first GNR officers on the scene thought they were acting.

"He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father." José María Batista Roque