UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Alfred R Jones on September 28, 2015, 06:46:49 PM
-
...here is an interesting case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251601/Dieter-Pfennig-confessed-killing-10-year-old-Louise-Bell-disappeared-bedroom-Adelaide-32-years-ago.html
It shows us that a child can be stolen from her bedroom whilst asleep and with a sibling in situ. This child was 10 years old so much bigger than Madeleine.
Not only that, but the parents were in the building at the time and the father had checked on the children several times during the night which shows that if an abductor is determined enough he will find a way to take what he wants regardless of the risks or obstacles.
It also demonstrates how some missing kids cases can take 30+ years to be solved.
31
-
...here is an interesting case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251601/Dieter-Pfennig-confessed-killing-10-year-old-Louise-Bell-disappeared-bedroom-Adelaide-32-years-ago.html
It shows us that a child can be stolen from her bedroom whilst asleep and with a sibling in situ. This child was 10 years old so much bigger than Madeleine.
Not only that, but the parents were in the building at the time and the father had checked on the children several times during the night which shows that if an abductor is determined enough he will find a way to take what he wants regardless of the risks or obstacles.
It also demonstrates how some missing kids cases can take 30+ years to be solved.
It is also a murder case.
How much publicity did this case have ?
-
It is also a murder case.
How much publicity did this case have ?
yes it is - so?
You second question is also irrelevant.
-
...here is an interesting case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251601/Dieter-Pfennig-confessed-killing-10-year-old-Louise-Bell-disappeared-bedroom-Adelaide-32-years-ago.html
It shows us that a child can be stolen from her bedroom whilst asleep and with a sibling in situ. This child was 10 years old so much bigger than Madeleine.
Not only that, but the parents were in the building at the time and the father had checked on the children several times during the night which shows that if an abductor is determined enough he will find a way to take what he wants regardless of the risks or obstacles.
It also demonstrates how some missing kids cases can take 30+ years to be solved.
Sounds very similar to Elizabeth Smart's case.
Of course it's possible. So is every other scenario in this case.
-
Why is it irrelevant ?
This case has had unparalleled publicity and yet no trace of her or how she she disappeared has been ascertained.
The cases are not parallel at all.
We're the girls parents put drinking and eating for hours on end, for several days in a row ?
All completely irrelevant.
-
The case in the opening thread demonstrates that it is possible for a sleeping child to be abducted by a stranger from a room she shares with a sibling. Additionally, it demonstrates that the size of the child did not preclude her from being taken, nor the close proximity of her parents. Finally it demonstrates how some cases of this nature can take many years to be solved.
Whether or not the parents were out drinking or how much publicity the case had are irrelevant to the points above.
-
The case in the opening thread demonstrates that it is possible for a sleeping child to be abducted by a stranger from a room she shares with a sibling. Additionally, it demonstrates that the size of the child did not preclude her from being taken, nor the close proximity of her parents. Finally it demonstrates how some cases of this nature can take many years to be solved.
Whether or not the parents were out drinking or how much publicity the case had are irrelevant to the points above.
So not very much in common with the McCann case then.
-
Sounds very similar to Elizabeth Smart's case.
Of course it's possible. So is every other scenario in this case.
There are some who don't accept it is possible, or who try and make the case that the child would have woken up and screamed, would have woken the sibling, would not be taken because she was too big, would not have been taken if her parents had not gone out "on the piss" etc
-
The case in the opening thread demonstrates that it is possible for a sleeping child to be abducted by a stranger from a room she shares with a sibling. Additionally, it demonstrates that the size of the child did not preclude her from being taken, nor the close proximity of her parents. Finally it demonstrates how some cases of this nature can take many years to be solved.
Whether or not the parents were out drinking or how much publicity the case had are irrelevant to the points above.
You are clutching at straws.
It is also possible Madeleine died in the apartment following an accident.
Would you not agree ?
-
So not very much in common with the McCann case then.
Why not?
-
You are clutching at straws.
It is also possible Madeleine died in the apartment following an accident.
Would you not agree ?
yes. do you agree it is possible Madeleine was abbucted by a stranger?
-
You are clutching at straws.
It is also possible Madeleine died in the apartment following an accident.
Would you not agree ?
I don't there is no evidence that she did. There was no time span for the McCann's to have hidden her body and no reason why they would have hidden her body.
-
Why not?
Much older child. Not on holiday in foreign country. Parents on site
-
Much older child. Not on holiday in foreign country. Parents on site
So what? Madeleine was younger but why does that make abduction less likely? Madeleine was staying in an aprtment in a holiday destination where other sexually motivated break-ins had been reported so why does that make abduction less lkely? Madeleine's parents were not on site, so why does that make abduction less likely?
-
I don't there is no evidence that she did. There was no time span for the McCann's to have hidden her body and no reason why they would have hidden her body.
You are going to have to better than that.
Yet you expect people to believe in abduction, when there is not one solitary piece of verifiable evidence.
-
You are going to have to better than that.
Yet you expect people to believe in abduction, when there is not one solitary piece of verifiable evidence.
Not much digging in PdL these days or people associated with the Tapas group being listed as persons of interest.
No discarded rusty old spades located.
One wonders what all those detectives have been doing for the last 4 years on this cut & dried case.
-
it seems this person hasn't been found guilty yet.
-
Much older child. Not on holiday in foreign country. Parents on site
Apart from that it's the same.
I wonder how big the property was and its location.
-
it seems this person hasn't been found guilty yet.
And has pleaded not guilty, so presumably ha retracted any statement of admission of guilt. Will be interesting to see if the forensics implicate him.
-
Not much digging in PdL these days or people associated with the Tapas group being listed as persons of interest.
No discarded rusty old spades located.
One wonders what all those detectives have been doing for the last 4 years on this cut & dried case.
...and SY have found ?
8)-)))
-
...and SY have found ?
8)-)))
Enough to warrant a further two million
-
And has pleaded not guilty, so presumably ha retracted any statement of admission of guilt. Will be interesting to see if the forensics implicate him.
It will indeed. Also whether, if guilty, he actually took the girl from her bedroom. It sounds like there was some friction between her and her sister that night, she could possibly have stamped off.
-
Enough to warrant a further two million
Is that on the OK of a certain party who met his bacon ? 8)--))
-
It will indeed. Also whether, if guilty, he actually took the girl from her bedroom. It sounds like there was some friction between her and her sister that night, she could possibly have stamped off.
Do you reckon she cut through the fly mesh before stamping off then?
-
Do you reckon she cut through the fly mesh before stamping off then?
Not sure the point you're trying to make with your OP Alfie. Children go missing from their bedrooms, rarely, but it happens. Soooo.....,?
-
Not sure the point you're trying to make with your OP Alfie. Children go missing from their bedrooms, rarely, but it happens. Soooo.....,?
this child was clearly abducted from her bedroom, whilst asleep less than one metre from her sibling. Do you accept that, or do you prefer to think she just disappeared?
-
this child was clearly abducted from her bedroom, whilst asleep less than one metre from her sibling. Do you accept that, or do you prefer to think she just disappeared?
Nope I accept that and.......?
-
Nope I accept that and.......?
then you must surely accept the possibility that Madeleine was also abducted, if not why not?
-
then you must surely accept the possibility that Madeleine was also abducted, if not why not?
Why should I accept it ?
-
Why should I accept it ?
Why shouldn't you?
-
Why shouldn't you?
Because that would be rather like comparing a sausage roll to a scone. They are both made with flour but further than that they're not the same thing at all.
-
...here is an interesting case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251601/Dieter-Pfennig-confessed-killing-10-year-old-Louise-Bell-disappeared-bedroom-Adelaide-32-years-ago.html
It shows us that a child can be stolen from her bedroom whilst asleep and with a sibling in situ. This child was 10 years old so much bigger than Madeleine.
Not only that, but the parents were in the building at the time and the father had checked on the children several times during the night which shows that if an abductor is determined enough he will find a way to take what he wants regardless of the risks or obstacles.
It also demonstrates how some missing kids cases can take 30+ years to be solved.
Yes, an interesting case. However, there are many cases of children even younger than Madeleine having got out on their own and met with some mishap or other so in reality all possibilities are still wide open imo.
-
Because that would be rather like comparing a sausage roll to a scone. They are both made with flour but further than that they're not the same thing at all.
I'm afraid that won't do. Why is it not possible that Madeleine was abducted? You must have reasons why it simply is beyond question, some critical piece of solid proof that completely rules out abduction once and for all.
-
I'm afraid that won't do. Why is it not possible that Madeleine was abducted? You must have reasons why it simply is beyond question, some critical piece of solid proof that completely rules out abduction once and for all.
You actually need evidence she was.
Would you like to provide some ?
-
Yes, an interesting case. However, there are many cases of children even younger than Madeleine having got out on their own and met with some mishap or other so in reality all possibilities are still wide open imo.
Do you have many examples of a child leaving home of its own volition late at night via an open window and disappearing for many years?
-
You actually need evidence she was.
Would you like to provide some ?
My question was addressed to Faithlilly but you can answer it too if you like - are you able to completely rule out abduction, and if so why?
-
Do you have many examples of a child leaving home of its own volition late at night via an open window and disappearing for many years?
Is there any evidence that a child left by an open window? i think not.
-
My question was addressed to Faithlilly but you can answer it too if you like - are you able to completely rule out abduction, and if so why?
Can you rule out accidental death in the apartment, and if so why ?
-
Can you rule out accidental death in the apartment, and if so why ?
I can rule it out, why would the McCann's hide the fact that Madeleine had had an accident?
Why would all the friends hide the fact that Madeleine had had an accident?
When was the accident supposed to have happened?
Before they went to dinner? They behaved normally at dinner everyone who saw them said so.
When they were dining? So one of them found Madeleine in the middle of having dinner, cleared up, over came their panic, horror and absolute devastation that their child had died and hid her body.
How where? did one of the McCann's hide Madeleine?
No way could the McCann's have done this it too far fetched. The McCann's did not know the area, yet managed in a small space of time, merely five minutes or so to find a totally undetectable place to hide the body of their child.
-
I can rule it out, why would the McCann's hide the fact that Madeleine had had an accident?
Why would all the friends hide the fact that Madeleine had had an accident?
When was the accident supposed to have happened?
Before they went to dinner? They behaved normally at dinner everyone who saw them said so.
When they were dining? So one of them found Madeleine in the middle of having dinner, cleared up, over came their panic, horror and absolute devastation that their child had died and hid her body.
How where? did one of the McCann's hide Madeleine?
No way could the McCann's have done this it too far fetched. The McCann's did not know the area, yet managed in a small space of time, merely five minutes or so to find a totally undetectable place to hide the body of their child.
You are speculating as usual, in your defense of the mccanns.
Have you forgotten that in medical training and through work, doctors do come across bodies ?
-
You are speculating as usual, in your defense of the mccanns.
Have you forgotten that in medical training and through work, doctors do come across bodies ?
It's a bit different when it's your own precious three year old daughter though isn't it Stephen?
-
It's a bit different when it's your own precious three year old daughter though isn't it Stephen?
How would you know how they reacted ?
Were you there ?
-
I can rule it out, why would the McCann's hide the fact that Madeleine had had an accident?
Why would all the friends hide the fact that Madeleine had had an accident?
When was the accident supposed to have happened?
Before they went to dinner? They behaved normally at dinner everyone who saw them said so.
When they were dining? So one of them found Madeleine in the middle of having dinner, cleared up, over came their panic, horror and absolute devastation that their child had died and hid her body.
How where? did one of the McCann's hide Madeleine?
No way could the McCann's have done this it too far fetched. The McCann's did not know the area, yet managed in a small space of time, merely five minutes or so to find a totally undetectable place to hide the body of their child.
1. No one can possibly answer that one way or another.
2. The T7 may not necessarily know what happened therefore they would have nothing to cover up except their own child care arrangements.
-
Is there any evidence that a child left by an open window? i think not.
In the case I have highlighted it appears that the child was abducted via an open window. In the McCann case there was also a window found open. Do you think it is possible that Madeleine was abducted via the open window? If not, why not?
-
Can you rule out accidental death in the apartment, and if so why ?
I concede that accidental death and her parents covering it up is a possibility, now over to you. Do you think that abduction is a possibility in this case, or can you rule it out as an impossibility as Faithlilly appears to have done?
-
1. No one can possibly answer that one way or another.
2. The T7 may not necessarily know what happened therefore they would have nothing to cover up except their own child care arrangements.
Except that the friends can verify that Gerry was with them in the Tapas bar when the alert was made.
-
1. No one can possibly answer that one way or another.
2. The T7 may not necessarily know what happened therefore they would have nothing to cover up except their own child care arrangements.
Hypothetically ... you return to your holiday apartment to find your child deceased. Cot death? A fall?
What would you do?
Hypothetically ... you are on holiday with a group of friends and their children. One of the couples finds one of their children has died. They ask you to "help cover it up".
What would you do?
That is the answer to Lace's post ... put yourself in their places ... and take it from there.
-
I concede that accidental death and her parents covering it up is a possibility, now over to you. Do you think that abduction is a possibility in this case, or can you rule it out as an impossibility as Faithlilly appears to have done?
Your playing games alfred.
Just the other day and on other occasions you have totally dismissed accidental death.
Now point me to real, absolute and unequivocal evidence of abduction.
-
Your playing games alfred.
Just the other day and on other occasions you have totally dismissed accidental death.
Now point me to real, absolute and unequivocal evidence of abduction.
I am not playing games Stephen. Here, you have it on record - I concede it is possible that the parents covered up the death. I don't think however, based on the known facts that they DID do so, but I concede it is a possibility nonetheless. Now, do you concede that abduction is a possibility or can you absolutely rule it out, and if so why?
-
Yes, an interesting case. However, there are many cases of children even younger than Madeleine having got out on their own and met with some mishap or other so in reality all possibilities are still wide open imo.
Few children who have wandered are subject to deliberately inflicted actual bodily harm. The majority are found and safeguarded by the finder until the authorities can take over. How many wanderers have vanished off the face of the earth?
Is Praia da Luz known as a place where unaccompanied children are more likely to come to harm than anywhere else in the world?
Have children there vanished without explanation ...into uncovered wells ~ crevasses ~ tunnels ~ road works ... or have been unable to walk a few yards unaccompanied without encountering a paedophile who will spirit them away?
-
Hypothetically ... you return to your holiday apartment to find your child deceased. Cot death? A fall?
What would you do?
Hypothetically ... you are on holiday with a group of friends and their children. One of the couples finds one of their children has died. They ask you to "help cover it up".
What would you do?
That is the answer to Lace's post ... put yourself in their places ... and take it from there.
Why? What I would do is not relevant as it wasn't me involved.
My simple question was why do the T7 have to be "in on it" ? The supporters argument that the T7 would have to be fully involved and cognisant of all the ins and outs is fallacious.
-
Why? What I would do is not relevant as it wasn't me involved.
My simple question was why do the T7 have to be "in on it" ? The supporters argument that the T7 would have to be fully involved and cognisant of all the ins and outs is fallacious.
Not if you need Smithman to be Gerry it's not. Also, if you believe that Madeleine's death was discovered by one of the McCanns during the tapas meal you would need to believe that they are skilled actors at being able to cover up such a devastating discovery or that Madeleine's death did not move them at all or that all seven of their friends are not very perceptive.
-
I am not playing games Stephen. Here, you have it on record - I concede it is possible that the parents covered up the death. I don't think however, based on the known facts that they DID do so, but I concede it is a possibility nonetheless. Now, do you concede that abduction is a possibility or can you absolutely rule it out, and if so why?
Your previous statements contradict you. I do not believe in abduction and haven't since very early on for a plethora of reasons, which you can obtain by reading my posts here or on Amazon.
I have yet to see any carte blanche evidence of abduction.
Perhaps you can point you way to some that will change my mind.
-
Not if you need Smithman to be Gerry it's not. Also, if you believe that Madeleine's death was discovered by one of the McCanns during the tapas meal you would need to believe that they are skilled actors at being able to cover up such a devastating discovery or that Madeleine's death did not move them at all or that all seven of their friends are not very perceptive.
Gerry was supposed to magic Madeleine from some secret hiding place and disappear with her for a while to hide her, without the friends even noticing.
-
Gerry was supposed to magic Madeleine from some secret hiding place and disappear with her for a while to hide her, without the friends even noticing.
Were the mccanns tracked 24 hours a day ?
and if you say yes, then please provide the evidence.
-
Were the mccanns tracked 24 hours a day ?
and if you say yes, then please provide the evidence.
Go on Stephen, tell me when Gerry had the opportunity to hide Madeleine's body.
-
Go on Stephen, tell me when Gerry had the opportunity to hide Madeleine's body.
I don't know what Gerry Mccann's movements were, DO YOU ?
-
I don't know what Gerry Mccann's movements were, DO YOU ?
Well you seem to think he hid Madeleine's body.
Let's presume he did find Madeleine dead, where would he have put the body before he could go out and hide it?
Or, are you saying he hid the body when he found it? When would that have been? before he was chatting to Jez? who said he was chatting and laughing normally with him.
Or before they went out for dinner? In broad daylight?
-
Why? What I would do is not relevant as it wasn't me involved.
My simple question was why do the T7 have to be "in on it" ? The supporters argument that the T7 would have to be fully involved and cognisant of all the ins and outs is fallacious.
The word "hypothetically" could have been expected to provide the clue. However I see that unsurprisingly you are unwilling to comment.
I think you may be entirely wrong in your assumption about what the "supporters" argue ... I am afraid the other side of the coin is fully demonstrated in numerous libellous entirely scurrilous comments on the internet some of which have not yet been 'tidied up' in anticipation.
You see ... I cannot quite grasp the mentality which assumes that the simplest solution to what happened to Madeleine McCann is perhaps the correct one.
The 'solutions' which have been proposed and most of which, sensibly have never been allowed to see the light of day on this forum are preposterous beyond belief.
I think knowledge of that is why you decline "hypotheticals" which are none of your own.
-
Well you seem to think he hid Madeleine's body.
Let's presume he did find Madeleine dead, where would he have put the body before he could go out and hide it?
Or, are you saying he hid the body when he found it? When would that have been? before he was chatting to Jez? who said he was chatting and laughing normally with him.
Or before they went out for dinner? In broad daylight?
Did I say Gerry specifically ?
Or did you ? 8)-)))
-
I am not playing games Stephen. Here, you have it on record - I concede it is possible that the parents covered up the death. I don't think however, based on the known facts that they DID do so, but I concede it is a possibility nonetheless. Now, do you concede that abduction is a possibility or can you absolutely rule it out, and if so why?
Perhaps you could write an article or book containing these "known facts" Alfred, because there certainly aren't any in either the Summers-Swan or McCann books.
-
The word "hypothetically" could have been expected to provide the clue. However I see that unsurprisingly you are unwilling to comment.
I think you may be entirely wrong in your assumption about what the "supporters" argue ... I am afraid the other side of the coin is fully demonstrated in numerous libellous entirely scurrilous comments on the internet some of which have not yet been 'tidied up' in anticipation.
You see ... I cannot quite grasp the mentality which assumes that the simplest solution to what happened to Madeleine McCann is perhaps the correct one.
The 'solutions' which have been proposed and most of which, sensibly have never been allowed to see the light of day on this forum are preposterous beyond belief.
I think knowledge of that is why you decline "hypotheticals" which are none of your own.
Sorry to disappoint you I just don't deal in hypotheticals with regard to my thoughts and actions. You might as well ask me what I will do with the dosh if I win the lottery. Just a completely pointless question. Until faced with the circumstances one just doesn't know. I expect there will those on here who claim to be clairbleedinvoyant and will know exactly what they will do......in a pigs eye they do.
-
Your previous statements contradict you. I do not believe in abduction and haven't since very early on for a plethora of reasons, which you can obtain by reading my posts here or on Amazon.
I have yet to see any carte blanche evidence of abduction.
Perhaps you can point you way to some that will change my mind.
My previous statements do not contradict me. For that to be true you would have to find a post by me in which I wrote that the parents dunnit or woke and wandered were impossible. I don't believe I have ever written that though I do think both theories are far less likely than abduction. Now, perhaps you can tell me why abduction is simply not a possibility in your view. An absence of evidence is not a reason in itself to scrub abduction off the list of theories.
-
Perhaps you could write an article or book containing these "known facts" Alfred, because there certainly aren't any in either the Summers-Swan or McCann books.
What utter hogwash. Both books contain umpteen known facts, like for example the McCanns went on holiday to PdL with their kids and friends. They stayed at the Ocean Club. One of their kids disappeared whilst her parents were eating at the OC restaurant, need I go on?
-
What utter hogwash. Both books contain umpteen known facts, like for example the McCanns went on holiday to PdL with their kids and friends. They stayed at the Ocean Club. One of their kids disappeared whilst her parents were eating at the OC restaurant, need I go on?
The Sand S book was just a rehash.
A read through the opening chapter, is little more than pure adoration of the mccanns.
At that point, the book had no value.
-
The Sand S book was just a rehash.
A read through the opening chapter, is little more than pure adoration of the mccanns.
At that point, the book had no value.
That's your opinion and you are entitled to voice it. I disagree, and believe it to contain many of the known facts.
-
That's your opinion and you are entitled to voice it. I disagree, and believe it to contain many of the known facts.
Facts ???
Abduction isn't a fact.
It was a one sided book, just another Mills and Boon special.
The book sales said everything.
-
What utter hogwash. Both books contain umpteen known facts, like for example the McCanns went on holiday to PdL with their kids and friends. They stayed at the Ocean Club. One of their kids disappeared whilst her parents were eating at the OC restaurant, need I go on?
Yes please 8**8:/:
-
Yes please 8**8:/:
Read the books then, and acquaint yourself with a wealth of facts. Failing that, the Police Files have a ton of known facts. Off you go and see if you can find any.
-
Facts ???
Abduction isn't a fact.
It was a one sided book, just another Mills and Boon special.
The book sales said everything.
Did I say abduction is a known fact? Behave Stephen.
Perhaps you can tell me now why abduction is an impossibility in this case.
-
Sorry to disappoint you I just don't deal in hypotheticals with regard to my thoughts and actions. You might as well ask me what I will do with the dosh if I win the lottery. Just a completely pointless question. Until faced with the circumstances one just doesn't know. I expect there will those on here who claim to be clairbleedinvoyant and will know exactly what they will do......in a pigs eye they do.
One may not know exactly how one will react in a given situation ... however one certainly knows what one would not do.
I await with interest your future posts in which hypotheticals have no place.
Some of the facts of this case are ...
- Madeleine McCann vanished from her bed on the third of May 2007
- Her parents and their friends have been subject to exhaustive investigation ending in Madeleine's case being archived and her parents and their friends released from suspicion
- After many years of campaigning with no let up ... her parents achieved a review which led to SY reopening Madeleine's case and declaring that neither her parents or their friends are persons of interest or suspects
- Portugal also carried out its own review which concluded that there was evidence to justify reopening Madeleine's case and that they were looking out with the McCann group none of whom were persons of interest to the investigation
- There is an active investigation being carried out on two fronts which may have converged by now ... people have been interviewed as persons of interest and arguidos ... none of which are known to the Drs McCann or their friends
- The Polνcia Judiciαria and Scotland Yard are investigating stranger abduction
Nothing at all hypothetical in that list, which could have been a lot longer than it is ... the wonder being that there are still those who apparently know better than the highly trained and experienced professionals tasked with investigating Madeleine's case.
-
Read the books then, and acquaint yourself with a wealth of facts. Failing that, the Police Files have a ton of known facts. Off you go and see if you can find any.
So there's a "wealth of facts" now?
Are these facts about what happened before the police were called or after?
-
One may not know exactly how one will react in a given situation ... however one certainly knows what one would not do.
I await with interest your future posts in which hypotheticals have no place.
Some of the facts of this case are ...
- Madeleine McCann vanished from her bed on the third of May 2007
- Her parents and their friends have been subject to exhaustive investigation ending in Madeleine's case being archived and her parents and their friends released from suspicion
- After many years of campaigning with no let up ... her parents achieved a review which led to SY reopening Madeleine's case and declaring that neither her parents or their friends are persons of interest or suspects
- Portugal also carried out its own review which concluded that there was evidence to justify reopening Madeleine's case and that they were looking out with the McCann group none of whom were persons of interest to the investigation
- There is an active investigation being carried out on two fronts which may have converged by now ... people have been interviewed as persons of interest and arguidos ... none of which are known to the Drs McCann or their friends
- The Polνcia Judiciαria and Scotland Yard are investigating stranger abduction
Nothing at all hypothetical in that list, which could have been a lot longer than it is ... the wonder being that there are still those who apparently know better than the highly trained and experienced professionals tasked with investigating Madeleine's case.
...and what has been found by the latest 'investigations' ?
Well we know that as well. 8)-)))
-
So there's a "wealth of facts" now?
Are these facts about what happened before the police were called or after?
Stop playing dumb, it doesn't suit you. Anyone pretending that there are no known facts in this case is either trolling or completely ignorant - which are you Lyall?
-
Stop playing dumb, it doesn't suit you. Anyone pretending that there are no known facts in this case is either trolling or completely ignorant - which are you Lyall?
It would seem there are only one truly ' known' fact. Madeleine is missing.
-
...and what has been found by the latest 'investigations' ?
Well we know that as well. 8)-)))
I am so bored with repeating different permutations in answer to the same question you pose without even shoogling the wording around ... are you still teaching exactly the same lesson you were over eight years ago? ... OHP forever!
"No, we do not know that, nor should we know what is going on in an active investigation into the case of a missing child."
However you do seem to be progressing to the recognition of what it is the investigations are looking into ... which as my post has stated is stranger abduction.
-
It would seem there are only one truly ' known' fact. Madeleine is missing.
If that is indeed the case (and I shall overlook your grammatical howler on this occasion) then how come you are able to dismiss the possibility of abduction so easily?
-
It would seem there are only one truly ' known' fact. Madeleine is missing.
%£&)**#
-
%£&)**#
Same question to you then. If that's the only verifiable fact then why is it not possible that her disappearance is due to stranger abduction?
-
If that is indeed the case (and I shall overlook your grammatical howler on this occasion) then how come you are able to dismiss the possibility of abduction so easily?
The truth is Alfie if you were able to counter my point satisfactorily you wouldn't have had to point out my ' grammatical howler' .
So what other 'facts' do you feel have been unearthed since May 3rd ?
-
I am so bored with repeating different permutations in answer to the same question you pose without even shoogling the wording around ... are you still teaching exactly the same lesson you were over eight years ago? ... OHP forever!
"No, we do not know that, nor should we know what is going on in an active investigation into the case of a missing child."
However you do seem to be progressing to the recognition of what it is the investigations are looking into ... which as my post has stated is stranger abduction.
Progressing where exactly ?
Most of what you type are meaningless cliches.
Yet no evidence worth a damn has come to light.
No sign or trail of Madeleine's whereabouts and the type of crime remains UNKNOWN.
-
Did I say abduction is a known fact? Behave Stephen.
Perhaps you can tell me now why abduction is an impossibility in this case.
Again, read what I typed earlier.
-
Same question to you then. If that's the only verifiable fact then why is it not possible that her disappearance is due to stranger abduction?
I already said on Page 1 it is possible, Alfred.
-
I already said on Page 1 it is possible, Alfred.
That's the thing Lyall. I don't think anyone posting on this forum is silly enough to believe that an abduction was absolutely impossible. Improbable, for me, would be a more appropriate description.
-
In the case I have highlighted it appears that the child was abducted via an open window. In the McCann case there was also a window found open. Do you think it is possible that Madeleine was abducted via the open window? If not, why not?
In both of the cases 'it appears' are the important words. Although I have no idea what happened in either case appearances can be deceptive. Evidence solves cases, not 'appearances'. In the case you are quoting, someone has already been convicted of this crime and was then freed as the evidence was unsafe. Whether there's enough reliable evidence in this second prosecution remains to be seen. Open windows do not prove an abduction via that window took place..
-
...here is an interesting case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251601/Dieter-Pfennig-confessed-killing-10-year-old-Louise-Bell-disappeared-bedroom-Adelaide-32-years-ago.html
It shows us that a child can be stolen from her bedroom whilst asleep and with a sibling in situ. This child was 10 years old so much bigger than Madeleine.
Not only that, but the parents were in the building at the time and the father had checked on the children several times during the night which shows that if an abductor is determined enough he will find a way to take what he wants regardless of the risks or obstacles.
It also demonstrates how some missing kids cases can take 30+ years to be solved.
31
There's also the 5-year-old abducted from her first floor bedroom this summer during the heatwave.
http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/allier-une-fillette-brievement-enlevee-par-un-homme-passe-par-la-fenetre-02-07-2015-4911221.php
-
That's the thing Lyall. I don't think anyone posting on this forum is silly enough to believe that an abduction was absolutely impossible. Improbable, for me, would be a more appropriate description.
And for me. I remember well when Madeleine's disappearance broke on TV and being gobsmacked/amazed/horrified the media could keep talking and writing and talking when so few facts had emerged. Sadly, eight years on we don't know anymore now about what happened during those hours than we did then.
-
I am so bored with repeating different permutations in answer to the same question you pose without even shoogling the wording around ... are you still teaching exactly the same lesson you were over eight years ago? ... OHP forever!
"No, we do not know that, nor should we know what is going on in an active investigation into the case of a missing child."
However you do seem to be progressing to the recognition of what it is the investigations are looking into ... which as my post has stated is stranger abduction.
Giving the game away there hen!
-
Giving the game away there hen!
If you refer to my ethnicity ... it is neither a "game" nor do I go to any great lengths to conceal it. It most certainly is nothing at all to do with the relevance of either the title of the thread or the substance of the post to which you have chosen to respond.
Your avoidance of the suggestion that even the most obdurate are now coming round to the realisation that the focus of both police investigations currently taking place is not on Madeleine McCann's parents or their friends ... but is entirely focused on stranger abduction ... is not surprising but no less tiresome than those mired in the suppositions of the mistakes made in the first investigation.
-
There's also the 5-year-old abducted from her first floor bedroom this summer during the heatwave.
http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/allier-une-fillette-brievement-enlevee-par-un-homme-passe-par-la-fenetre-02-07-2015-4911221.php
Man climbed in open upstairs window, wrapped child in blanket or duvet?, threw child out window, a 3.5 metre drop, .....
-
If you refer to my ethnicity ... it is neither a "game" nor do I go to any great lengths to conceal it. It most certainly is nothing at all to do with the relevance of either the title of the thread or the substance of the post to which you have chosen to respond.
Your avoidance of the suggestion that even the most obdurate are now coming round to the realisation that the focus of both police investigations currently taking place is not on Madeleine McCann's parents or their friends ... but is entirely focused on stranger abduction ... is not surprising but no less tiresome than those mired in the suppositions of the mistakes made in the first investigation.
Tiresome? When their politically-motivated restricted investigations have gone and we're back at square one, we'll still be discussing the case making our voices heard. Who is it that really cares about Madeleine herself? Those who look at the whole picture, or those who have restricted their view based on nothing more than police soundbites? Where is the evidence on which Redwood made his various TV statements? Unlike Portuguese citizens who have real FOI laws, we British subjects will never find out. So don't blame us if we assume there isn't any.
-
Man climbed in open upstairs window, wrapped child in blanket or duvet?, threw child out window, a 3.5 metre drop, .....
There might have been a second person intending to catch her, but it's not clear. Witnesses descriptions don't seem to be the same, so it's a possibility.
The poor little mite described a sensation of falling, but the man she described doesn't seem to tally with a man seen running away. She's only 5 and was taken to hospital for a head injury, which obviously made getting information out of her even more delicate.
The prosecutor said that there was no doubt that she had been abducted, but that a lot of information still had to be waded through. Since then, no real updates.
She would hardly have been sleeping under a duvet in the middle of a heatwave, which is why what seems to be French doors were open in the first place. There may have been a duvet somewhere in the room, or one had been brought up to wrap her in.
-
Tiresome? When their politically-motivated restricted investigations have gone and we're back at square one, we'll still be discussing the case making our voices heard. Who is it that really cares about Madeleine herself? Those who look at the whole picture, or those who have restricted their view based on nothing more than police soundbites? Where is the evidence on which Redwood made his various TV statements? Unlike Portuguese citizens who have real FOI laws, we British subjects will never find out. So don't blame us if we assume there isn't any.
We will never be back at square one whatever the outcome of the current investigations. It is actually very sad that you appear to be incapable of realising that and give the impression of relishing the thought of continuing with business as before in the event Madeleine is not found.
Who do you think is responsible for keeping up the pressure which ensured Madeleine McCann's case to be kept in the public conscience resulting eventually in the case into her disappearance being officially reopened?
Who do you think is for campaigning relentlessly against everything those people have achieved before and after the event?
Who do you think constantly criticises the costs of investigating Madeleine's case?
Think about those rhetorical questions very carefully ... then think about your question ...
"Who is it that really cares about Madeleine herself?"
I think you will find that the answer is self evident.
-
We will never be back at square one whatever the outcome of the current investigations. It is actually very sad that you appear to be incapable of realising that and give the impression of relishing the thought of continuing with business as before in the event Madeleine is not found.
Who do you think is responsible for keeping up the pressure which ensured Madeleine McCann's case to be kept in the public conscience resulting eventually in the case into her disappearance being officially reopened?
Who do you think is for campaigning relentlessly against everything those people have achieved before and after the event?
Who do you think constantly criticises the costs of investigating Madeleine's case?
Think about those rhetorical questions very carefully ... then think about your question ...
"Who is it that really cares about Madeleine herself?"
I think you will find that the answer is self evident.
I think the answer, in all its glory, would be revealed if the McCanns were ever charged with a part in Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Did I say Gerry specifically ?
Or did you ? 8)-)))
Gerry/Kate when did either of them have the opportunity to hide Madeleine's body?
-
We will never be back at square one whatever the outcome of the current investigations. It is actually very sad that you appear to be incapable of realising that and give the impression of relishing the thought of continuing with business as before in the event Madeleine is not found.
Who do you think is responsible for keeping up the pressure which ensured Madeleine McCann's case to be kept in the public conscience resulting eventually in the case into her disappearance being officially reopened?
Who do you think is for campaigning relentlessly against everything those people have achieved before and after the event?
Who do you think constantly criticises the costs of investigating Madeleine's case?
Think about those rhetorical questions very carefully ... then think about your question ...
"Who is it that really cares about Madeleine herself?"
I think you will find that the answer is self evident.
Couldn't agree more, Brietta, it is sad. Everything about the case is sad. As are all missing child cases of course.
But this one has been plagued with TV soundbites right from the start (from May 4th's effort from Madeleine's father himself onwards) and in the abscence of evidence Redwood's statements are just more commodities emerging from the same production line (production being very much the right choice of word.)
That is indeed very sad.
-
The truth is Alfie if you were able to counter my point satisfactorily you wouldn't have had to point out my ' grammatical howler' .
So what other 'facts' do you feel have been unearthed since May 3rd ?
OK to make you happy I will concede that there is only one known fact in this case - Madeleine's disappearance. Now, that being the case, please tell me why as this is the only "known fact" you are happy to state that abduction is not possible?
-
That's the thing Lyall. I don't think anyone posting on this forum is silly enough to believe that an abduction was absolutely impossible. Improbable, for me, would be a more appropriate description.
You have already stated you thought it impossible on this thread - backtracking now are you?
-
Couldn't agree more, Brietta, it is sad. Everything about the case is sad. As are all missing child cases of course.
But this one has been plagued with TV soundbites right from the start (from May 4th's effort from Madeleine's father himself onwards) and in the abscence of evidence Redwood's statements are just more commodities emerging from the same production line (production being very much the right choice of word.)
That is indeed very sad.
Admittedly it is more usual when a child goes missing for the police to take immediate control of arranging press conferences to publicise the missing child and to disseminate information to the press pack.
We are very familiar with them.
Which makes it all the more poignant that as you have pointed out, it was left to the parents of the missing child to bear the burden without that backing and support.
I think that may be unprecedented.
Why you criticise the parents for taking appropriate action and fail to criticise the police inaction is for you to ponder ... however in cases of missing children it is considered essential to publicise the situation as timeously as is possible ... there is plenty of official literature to support the parents' action in publicising Madeleine's disappearance, nothing really which supports your disdain of them for that outside certain fora.
-
Gerry/Kate when did either of them have the opportunity to hide Madeleine's body?
I have asked you this before.
Where they monitored 24 hours a day ?
-
Admittedly it is more usual when a child goes missing for the police to take immediate control of arranging press conferences to publicise the missing child and to disseminate information to the press pack.
We are very familiar with them.
Which makes it all the more poignant that as you have pointed out, it was left to the parents of the missing child to bear the burden without that backing and support.
I think that may be unprecedented.
Why you criticise the parents for taking appropriate action and fail to criticise the police inaction is for you to ponder ... however in cases of missing children it is considered essential to publicise the situation as timeously as is possible ... there is plenty of official literature to support the parents' action in publicising Madeleine's disappearance, nothing really which supports your disdain of them for that outside certain fora.
And there are also plenty of cases in which police/authorities say nothing, with good reason, especially if they suspect kidnapping.
But the media already controlled this case before anyone even made an official statement. And we know who ensured that would happen.
There would have been big repercussions if the same scenario has happened in the US, and in the UK. Police would have been furious with the child's parents, and rightly so.
-
And there are also plenty of cases in which police/authorities say nothing, with good reason, especially if they suspect kidnapping.
But the media already controlled this case before anyone even made an official statement. And we know who ensured that would happen.
There would have been big repercussions if the same scenario has happened in the US, and in the UK. Police would have been furious with the child's parents, and rightly so.
Let's face it, the Portuguese police were overwhelmed from the start and really couldn't believe what had descended upon them. Poor old Goncalo was left totally out of his depth with very little back up even when the British cops arrived in town.
-
Let's face it, the Portuguese police were overwhelmed from the start and really couldn't believe what had descended upon them. Poor old Goncalo was left totally out of his depth with very little back up even when the British cops arrived in town.
Of course they were overwhelmed. So were the British police in Soham, and police in numerous other cases in all countries.
That's what happens when the irresponsible media are invited to overwhelm, and they were never more invited in than they were in this case.
-
And there are also plenty of cases in which police/authorities say nothing, with good reason, especially if they suspect kidnapping.
But the media already controlled this case before anyone even made an official statement. And we know who ensured that would happen.
There would have been big repercussions if the same scenario has happened in the US, and in the UK. Police would have been furious with the child's parents, and rightly so.
This post has got absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but it would be interesting to know how you think the media actually controlled this case - perhaps you could start a new thread to explain what you mean...?
-
Let's face it, the Portuguese police were overwhelmed from the start and really couldn't believe what had descended upon them. Poor old Goncalo was left totally out of his depth with very little back up even when the British cops arrived in town.
I agree Mr Amaral was totally out of his depth.
On the fourth he was constituted arguido in an unrelated missing child case.
An event which would have been a blow to anyone's self esteem, but which must really have put him under immense pressure to 'prove himself' by wrapping up Madeleine McCann's case as quickly as he could by finding, if not the child herself, the person\s responsible for her disappearance.
I'm not sure exactly how he viewed the presence of the Brits. I think he may have felt threatened by them as he says he immediately had them followed with the instruction for reports back to him of their movements.
Why would that be considered necessary if he viewed them as an asset and colleagues in arms?
Any police force would have been overwhelmed by a similar enormity being visited upon them ... but I think they would possibly have exhibited different coping mechanisms.
One of the least of which might have been co-operation with colleagues from the victim's local force more out of their depth by dint of being on foreign soil and out-with their jurisdiction ... rather than wasting manpower by shadowing them which suggests a lack of interest in what they might have been able to bring to the investigation and a distrust verging on paranoia.
-
This post has got absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but it would be interesting to know how you think the media actually controlled this case - perhaps you could start a new thread to explain what you mean...?
The town was full of camera crews within hours, and virtually occupied by them by the end of Day 2.
It influences witnesses and potentially deters many from ever getting involved to tell what they know or have seen/may have seen.
We talked about that the other week.
-
The town was full of camera crews within hours, and virtually occupied by them by the end of Day 2.
It influences witnesses and potentially deters many from ever getting involved to tell what they know or have seen/may have seen.
We talked about that the other week.
That witnesses were not deterred is shown by the volume of statements available in the files. What was done or not done with that information might potentially have had more influence on the outcome of Madeleine McCann's case than any amount of media intrusion.
One of the consequences of 24hr news coverage is that it happens, it is intrusive, but most modern policing authorities manage the situation as best they can.
The one thing you can be sure of is that in a case such as this whether twenty minutes after the event or twenty hours after there will be a media presence. Why Madeleine's parents are considered at fault for this is a quandary.
-
The town was full of camera crews within hours, and virtually occupied by them by the end of Day 2.
It influences witnesses and potentially deters many from ever getting involved to tell what they know or have seen/may have seen.
We talked about that the other week.
So you're against any media coverage for any criminal act for the same reasons I take it?
-
That witnesses were not deterred is shown by the volume of statements available in the files. What was done or not done with that information might potentially have had more influence on the outcome of Madeleine McCann's case than any amount of media intrusion.
One of the consequences of 24hr news coverage is that it happens, it is intrusive, but most modern policing authorities manage the situation as best they can.
The one thing you can be sure of is that in a case such as this whether twenty minutes after the event or twenty hours after there will be a media presence. Why Madeleine's parents are considered at fault for this is a quandary.
How can you possibly know nobody was deterred from speaking to police?
-
So you're against any media coverage for any criminal act for the same reasons I take it?
Media should be responsible. As they (usually) are in cases in Britain, since Soham at least (apart from certain individuals at Sky News - but even there most are responsible, if it's a case in Britain).
They were rabid in Portugal in 2007.
-
Media should be responsible. As they (usually) are in cases in Britain, since Soham at least (apart from certain individuals at Sky News - but even there most are responsible, if it's a case in Britain).
They were rabid in Portugal in 2007.
Rabid in what way? Frothing at the mouth? Engaging in acts of violence? What?
(Nicely off topic now, btw).
-
Rabid in what way? Frothing at the mouth? Engaging in acts of violence? What?
(Nicely off topic now, btw).
That's what happens with conversations 8)-)))
By the time of them laying siege to RM's house, yes they were frothing at the mouth.
Maybe rabid isn't the right word. Demented might be.
(If you don't want to follow the flow of the conversation in your thread,just stop replying. Simples).
-
That's what happens with conversations 8)-)))
By the time of them laying siege to RM's house, yes they were frothing at the mouth.
Maybe rabid isn't the right word. Demented might be.
(If you don't want to follow the flow of the conversation in your thread,just stop replying. Simples).
I doin't mind following the flow of the conversation, however the Mods just might - perhaps they could separate this conversation off and give it a new topic header such as "How the Demented Media Controlled the Investigation"?
-
I doin't mind following the flow of the conversation, however the Mods just might - perhaps they could separate this conversation off and give it a new topic header such as "How the Demented Media Controlled the Investigation"?
You can read my book(let) about it (when published) 8((()*/
-
OK to make you happy I will concede that there is only one known fact in this case - Madeleine's disappearance. Now, that being the case, please tell me why as this is the only "known fact" you are happy to state that abduction is not possible?
Where did I say it wasn't possible ? Improbable I said.
-
I doin't mind following the flow of the conversation, however the Mods just might - perhaps they could separate this conversation off and give it a new topic header such as "How the Demented Media Controlled the Investigation"?
Perhaps we could start one on why Cameron got involved in this case.
Posters could go the whole hog on such a topic. 8)-)))
-
Where did I say it wasn't possible ? Improbable I said.
I asked you to accept the possibility that Madeleine had been abducted and you refused, giving some nonsense about scones and sausage rolls as your reason why you refused to accept it - read back!
-
I asked you to accept the possibility that Madeleine had been abducted and you refused, giving some nonsense about scones and sausage rolls as your reason why you refused to accept it - read back!
No you said I would have to accept blah, blah blah and I said why do I need to accept it. Perhaps it should be you who needs to read back Alfie.
-
How can you possibly know nobody was deterred from speaking to police?
In the case of the Smith family any delay in contacting the police appeared to be they required their memories to be prompted a fortnight after the event.
Talking to the police didn't seem to be the reason.
In the case of Tannerman now Crecheman maybe he did speak to the police at the time but he certainly had no compunction speaking to the police later so that would be two.
In the case of Mrs Fenn, the resident of the apartment immediately above the apartment the child disappeared from she had no problems in volunteering information; what a pity such a material witness wasn't asked at the time had she heard anything unusual on the evening of the 3rd ~ any strange vehicles ~ or just the normal questions someone living on top of an incident could be expected to be asked.
I would make that three.
I would suggest that anyone who may have been deterred from speaking to the police might have had their own reasons for that, as recognised by Jenny Murat who set up her own stall to assist.
-
In the case of the Smith family any delay in contacting the police appeared to be they required their memories to be prompted a fortnight after the event.
Talking to the police didn't seem to be the reason.
In the case of Tannerman now Crecheman maybe he did speak to the police at the time but he certainly had no compunction speaking to the police later so that would be two.
In the case of Mrs Fenn, the resident of the apartment immediately above the apartment the child disappeared from she had no problems in volunteering information; what a pity such a material witness wasn't asked at the time had she heard anything unusual on the evening of the 3rd ~ any strange vehicles ~ or just the normal questions someone living on top of an incident could be expected to be asked.
I would make that three.
I would suggest that anyone who may have been deterred from speaking to the police might have had their own reasons for that, as recognised by Jenny Murat who set up her own stall to assist.
Your making more assumptions here. How do you know, for instance, Mrs Fenn wasn't asked about all kinds of things? Police speak to witnesses informally as well, and what's recorded in black and white in the published documents is just a fraction of the total police activity.
But you're missing my point. If - as we know happens - some witnesses don't come forward for weeks, months or even years (Redwood told us he was contacted by some over six years later), how can anyone say some still haven't come forward? (Not because they haven't seen any publicity, but because they don't want to).
You're right they may have their own reasons not to come forward. One of which might be they don't want the same British media that harassed RM (and family), and a great many others, to know about them.
How much more unwilling would someone be to be known by the British media in May 2007? Anyone seeing the scene outside RM's house would think twice I'm sure.
-
No you said I would have to accept blah, blah blah and I said why do I need to accept it. Perhaps it should be you who needs to read back Alfie.
I have read back - I said that if you accept a child can be lifted sleeping from her bed next to her sleeping sibling and be taken by a stranger via a window which has been tampered with then, you must surely accept that it is a possibility that Madeleine was also abducted. You refused to accept that it is a possibility, because of scones and sausage rolls and the like. I can copy and paste the whole conversation here if you like.
-
You can read my book(let) about it (when published) 8((()*/
When's that going to be? Will it be published online or are you planning to sell it for £1.50 plus SAE?
-
Your making more assumptions here. How do you know, for instance, Mrs Fenn wasn't asked about all kinds of things? Police speak to witnesses informally as well, and what's recorded in black and white in the published documents is just a fraction of the total police activity.
But you're missing my point. If - as we know happens - some witnesses don't come forward for weeks, months or even years (Redwood told us he was contacted by some over six years later), how can anyone say some still haven't come forward? (Not because they haven't seen any publicity, but because they don't want to).
You're right they may have their own reasons not to come forward. One of which might be they don't want the same British media that harassed RM (and family), and a great many others, to know about them.
How much more unwilling would someone be to be known by the British media in May 2007? Anyone seeing the scene outside RM's house would think twice I'm sure.
With respect I am missing nothing ... if you wish to suggest spurious reasons to condone withholding information from the police which may assist in the search for a missing child, be my guest.
However it does nothing to sustain the argument that Madeleine McCann was not abducted. That is your position is it not?
So why not defend it with cogent argument while staying on topic at the same time?
-
When's that going to be? Will it be published online or are you planning to sell it for £1.50 plus SAE?
There's no rush. Yes, online. Amazon (it won't be defamatory).
-
Your making more assumptions here. How do you know, for instance, Mrs Fenn wasn't asked about all kinds of things? Police speak to witnesses informally as well, and what's recorded in black and white in the published documents is just a fraction of the total police activity.
But you're missing my point. If - as we know happens - some witnesses don't come forward for weeks, months or even years (Redwood told us he was contacted by some over six years later), how can anyone say some still haven't come forward? (Not because they haven't seen any publicity, but because they don't want to).
You're right they may have their own reasons not to come forward. One of which might be they don't want the same British media that harassed RM (and family), and a great many others, to know about them.
How much more unwilling would someone be to be known by the British media in May 2007? Anyone seeing the scene outside RM's house would think twice I'm sure.
A number of individuals were made arguidos in this case not that long ago. Did the demented media froth at the mouth over them? I can't name one of them, so maybe not so much, eh? If you have information which you think may be helpful you can always tell the police in confidence, no need to go bleating about it to the media is there?
-
There's no rush. Yes, online. Amazon (it won't be defamatory).
What's it called? I don't download booklets but I'm sure someone will and then they can copy it for the rest of us to read for free. 8(0(*
-
With respect I am missing nothing ... if you wish to suggest spurious reasons to condone withholding information from the police which may assist in the search for a missing child, be my guest.
However it does nothing to sustain the argument that Madeleine McCann was not abducted. That is your position is it not?
So why not defend it with cogent argument while staying on topic at the same time?
You seem to 'forget' brietta there is sweet #A to show abduction.
-
With respect I am missing nothing ... if you wish to suggest spurious reasons to condone withholding information from the police which may assist in the search for a missing child, be my guest.
However it does nothing to sustain the argument that Madeleine McCann was not abducted. That is your position is it not?
So why not defend it with cogent argument while staying on topic at the same time?
Condone? &%&£(+ Trolling again, Brietta. Tut, tut.
-
You seem to 'forget' brietta there is sweet #A to show abduction.
Perhaps you should contact SY and the PJ to inform them of the superior knowledge which enables you to say they are following the wrong tack. I'm sure they will immediately stop investigating abduction an... ... wait a minute, I don't really think so ... do you?
-
What's it called? I don't download booklets but I'm sure someone will and then they can copy it for the rest of us to read for free. 8(0(*
Naughty %56& No title yet, it's not finished.
-
Condone? &%&£(+ Trolling again, Brietta. Tut, tut.
More deflection for the simple reason you are incapable of thinking of anything to say to support that Madeleine McCann was not abducted. Reinforcing that the AYES have it!
-
Perhaps you should contact SY and the PJ to inform them of the superior knowledge which enables you to say they are following the wrong tack. I'm sure they will immediately stop investigating abduction an... ... wait a minute, I don't really think so ... do you?
So what do you think they have found brietta apart from free trips to the Algarve at the tax payers expense ?
8(0(*
-
More deflection for the simple reason you are incapable of thinking of anything to say to support that Madeleine McCann was not abducted. Reinforcing that the AYES have it!
It is you who is desperate.
Hanging on to an investigation which has found Jack S'''t.
-
More deflection for the simple reason you are incapable of thinking of anything to say to support that Madeleine McCann was not abducted. Reinforcing that the AYES have it!
Peace, Brietta. Have it (for the moment ?{)(**).
-
It is you who is desperate.
Hanging on to an investigation which has found Jack S'''t.
An investigation that has just been given more money to carry on Stephen.
Sums up what you know doesn't it Jack S''t.
-
An investigation that has just been given more money to carry on Stephen.
Sums up what you know doesn't it Jack S''t.
Have they found Madeleine ?
NO.
Have they found how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment ?
NO.
8((()*/
-
I have read back - I said that if you accept a child can be lifted sleeping from her bed next to her sleeping sibling and be taken by a stranger via a window which has been tampered with then, you must surely accept that it is a possibility that Madeleine was also abducted. You refused to accept that it is a possibility, because of scones and sausage rolls and the like. I can copy and paste the whole conversation here if you like.
Be my guest Alfie. In the meantime I'll be learning to make sashimi but I'll pop in later to see how fat out of shape you've managed to twist yourself 8(0(*
-
Have they found Madeleine ?
NO.
Have they found how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment ?
NO.
8((()*/
Why would they be given £2m more if they had found Madeleine and knew all the answers? Don't be silly Stephen.
-
Be my guest Alfie. In the meantime I'll be learning to make sashimi but I'll pop in later to see how fat out of shape you've managed to twist yourself 8(0(*
Learning to make sashimi - wow! How frightfully middle class of you. It's certainly a step up from sausage rolls at any rate.
-
Why would they be given £2m more if they had found Madeleine and knew all the answers? Don't be silly Stephen.
What has the £11,000,000 spent so far achieved then ?
Other than two letters of the alphabet.
-
Have they found Madeleine ?
NO.
Have they found how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment ?
NO.
8((()*/
Have they found Madeleine? Not yet.
Have they found how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment? Well they haven't arrested the McCann's.
You go tell them Stephen enlighten them with your knowledge.
-
Have they found Madeleine? Not yet.
Have they found how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment? Well they haven't arrested the McCann's.
You go tell them Stephen enlighten them with your knowledge.
So you think they will find her alive then ?
Perhaps in pinky winky land. 8)-)))
-
For the Sashimi Queen:
Faithlilly: Not sure the point you're trying to make with your OP Alfie. Children go missing from their bedrooms, rarely, but it happens. Soooo.....,?
Alfie: this child was clearly abducted from her bedroom, whilst asleep less than one metre from her sibling. Do you accept that, or do you prefer to think she just disappeared?
F: Nope I accept that and.......?
A: then you must surely accept the possibility that Madeleine was also abducted, if not why not?
F: Why should I accept it ?
A: Why shouldn't you?
F: Because that would be rather like comparing a sausage roll to a scone. They are both made with flour but further than that they're not the same thing at all.
****
So there we have it. Faithlilly cannot accept the possibility that Madeleine was abducted.
-
So you think they will find her alive then ?
Perhaps in pinky winky land. 8)-)))
Why are you putting a smily after such a post, are you mocking the fact that Madeleine hasn't been found? Gloating?
-
Why are you putting a smily after such a post, are you mocking the fact that Madeleine hasn't been found? Gloating?
That's certainly how it looks - most distasteful. Some people would be dreadfully upset if she ever was found, I reckon.
-
For the Sashimi Queen:
Faithlilly: Not sure the point you're trying to make with your OP Alfie. Children go missing from their bedrooms, rarely, but it happens. Soooo.....,?
Alfie: this child was clearly abducted from her bedroom, whilst asleep less than one metre from her sibling. Do you accept that, or do you prefer to think she just disappeared?
F: Nope I accept that and.......?
A: then you must surely accept the possibility that Madeleine was also abducted, if not why not?
F: Why should I accept it ?
A: Why shouldn't you?
F: Because that would be rather like comparing a sausage roll to a scone. They are both made with flour but further than that they're not the same thing at all.
****
So there we have it. Faithlilly cannot accept the possibility that Madeleine was abducted.
Yet you push for the abduction, for which there is sweet #A evidence.
-
Why are you putting a smily after such a post, are you mocking the fact that Madeleine hasn't been found? Gloating?
Hardly mocking.
If I was really mocking, you would know it.
I am merely pointing out you believe in fantasy stories of Madeleine's return, when there has not been one trace of her since the night she disappeared.
-
That's certainly how it looks - most distasteful. Some people would be dreadfully upset if she ever was found, I reckon.
It's just a feud against the McCann's in my opinion Alfred, no thought of the child that is still missing, it's how can I gain points against the McCann's, ha ha they can't find Madeleine.
-
Yet you push for the abduction, for which there is sweet #A evidence.
I am pushing for nothing, I am simply asking why people can dismiss abduction as not possible. According to Faithlilly and Lyall on this thread there is only one known fact - Madeleine's disappearance. If that is so, then how can anyone casually disregard a very possible theory for that disappearance, ie: that someone entered the apartment and took her while she slept, something which has happened in other cases?
-
Hardly mocking.
If I was really mocking, you would know it.
I am merely pointing out you believe in fantasy stories of Madeleine's return, when there has not been one trace of her since the night she disappeared.
Quote - If I was really mocking, you would know it unquote god you're hard Stephen
I believe that she may be found alive yes, why should that be a fantasy? Children have been found alive after years missing.
How do you know there hasn't been any trace of her? The police have been unable to trace her yes, but there could have been genuine sightings of her that have not been proven to be her.
Not everyone's glass is always half empty as yours seems to be, some of us still have hope. If it was left to you all children would be given up on.
-
It's just a feud against the McCann's in my opinion Alfred, no thought of the child that is still missing, it's how can I gain points against the McCann's, ha ha they can't find Madeleine.
Yup. It's rather sickening, pouring scorn on the McCanns' and the Met's efforts to solve this mystery, desperately hoping that it is all in vain and comes to nothing.
-
Quote - If I was really mocking, you would know it unquote god you're hard Stephen
I believe that she may be found alive yes, why should that be a fantasy? Children have been found alive after years missing.
How do you know there hasn't been any trace of her? The police have been unable to trace her yes, but there could have been genuine sightings of her that have not been proven to be her.
Not everyone's glass is always half empty as yours seems to be, some of us still have hope. If it was left to you all children would be given up on.
There is a line between reality and fantasy, and I know which side of the line I'm on.
You also conveniently seem to forget what BHH said in his slip.
-
There is a line between reality and fantasy, and I know which side of the line I'm on.
You also conveniently seem to forget what BHH said in his slip.
You don't believe Madeleine was murdered though do you Stephen?
-
There is a line between reality and fantasy, and I know which side of the line I'm on.
You also conveniently seem to forget what BHH said in his slip.
Oh I know which side of the line you are on Stephen.
BHH said murder didn't he, well they did investigate that she might have been. Why are you drooling about that slip up?
-
You don't believe Madeleine was murdered though do you Stephen?
I have considered that possibility.
However, why did BHH come out with what he said.
He seems to be prone to inadvertently saying what is really going on.
-
Oh I know which side of the line you are on Stephen.
BHH said murder didn't he, well they did investigate that she might have been. Why are you drooling about that slip up?
I am not drooling.
However, I do know fantasy from reality.
How about you ?
-
The problem is that UK police and the media tend to use the word murder when in fact it may be nothing of the kind. Homicide, as used by the Americans is a more appropriate term as it includes a number of different types of death.
-
Oh I know which side of the line you are on Stephen.
BHH said murder didn't he, well they did investigate that she might have been. Why are you drooling about that slip up?
Stephen seems to think that anyone who believes there is a chance that Madeleine might still be alive is a simpleton, and so is worth mocking. Personally, I doubt she is, and I'd probably have given up hope of finding her within a year of her disappearance but I'm a pessimist. I prefer not to mock those with hope though.
-
Stephen seems to think that anyone who believes there is a chance that Madeleine might still be alive is a simpleton, and so is worth mocking. Personally, I doubt she is, and I'd probably have given up hope of finding her within a year of her disappearance but I'm a pessimist. I prefer not to mock those with hope though.
I found that slightly hypocritical, with the well known mxccann supporters ethos of mocking and insulting those who don't believe the mccanns tales.
By the way, don't say you haven't given insults or mocked the 'sceptics'.
-
I am not drooling.
However, I do know fantasy from reality.
How about you ?
SY were investigating if it was a burglary gone wrong and that Madeleine could have been murdered in the process, not that she was murdered by the McCann's.
Strange isn't it you call it fantasy, yet the children who have been found say 'never give up hope' how can individuals be so different.
-
Learning to make sashimi - wow! How frightfully middle class of you. It's certainly a step up from sausage rolls at any rate.
I thought I'd use a couple of edibles you'd have some experience of in my analogy.. I myself am a pescetarian so no meat based pastries for me I'm afraid.
-
I found that slightly hypocritical, with the well known mxccann supporters ethos of mocking and insulting those who don't believe the mccanns tales.
By the way, don't say you haven't given insults or mocked the 'sceptics'.
No one should mock the fact that Madeleine hasn't been found which is what you do all the time, with lines of smileys.
-
SY were investigating if it was a burglary gone wrong and that Madeleine could have been murdered in the process, not that she was murdered by the McCann's.
Strange isn't it you call it fantasy, yet the children who have been found say 'never give up hope' how can individuals be so different.
I was waiting for a response such as that.
Now tell me of a case which has had so much publicity and with nothing to show for it ?
-
SY were investigating if it was a burglary gone wrong and that Madeleine could have been murdered in the process, not that she was murdered by the McCann's.
Strange isn't it you call it fantasy, yet the children who have been found say 'never give up hope' how can individuals be so different.
Its a question of outlook.
I believe she is dead and will be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong.
Anyone who believes she is alive will be mortified if they find that they are wrong
-
No one should mock the fact that Madeleine hasn't been found which is what you do all the time, with lines of smileys.
Try not to exaggerate.
It would help.
-
I thought I'd use a couple of edibles you'd have some experience of in my analogy.. I myself am a pescetarian so no meat based pastries for me I'm afraid.
Well there's something we have in common. Who'da thunk it?!
-
Okay. That's enough. Back On Topic and cut the insults.
-
Stephen seems to think that anyone who believes there is a chance that Madeleine might still be alive is a simpleton, and so is worth mocking. Personally, I doubt she is, and I'd probably have given up hope of finding her within a year of her disappearance but I'm a pessimist. I prefer not to mock those with hope though.
I agree it is pushing on the side of the 'she is dead' but until they find out what happened to her, then I hope she is still alive.
No doubt those who keep saying she is dead stop the investigation will be the first to say 'told you' if she IS dead, as if it has never crossed anyone who believes the McCann's minds that she could be, even the McCann's themselves say that she may be dead but they keep hope in their minds that she is not.
-
I found that slightly hypocritical, with the well known mxccann supporters ethos of mocking and insulting those who don't believe the mccanns tales.
By the way, don't say you haven't given insults or mocked the 'sceptics'.
Of course I have. The ones I have mocked and insulted deserve it, the only outcome they hope for is the incarceration of Madeleine's innocent parents whilst at the same time they ridicule those who hope that Madeleine will be eventually found alive. These are unpleasant people for sure.
-
For the Sashimi Queen:
Faithlilly: Not sure the point you're trying to make with your OP Alfie. Children go missing from their bedrooms, rarely, but it happens. Soooo.....,?
Alfie: this child was clearly abducted from her bedroom, whilst asleep less than one metre from her sibling. Do you accept that, or do you prefer to think she just disappeared?
F: Nope I accept that and.......?
A: then you must surely accept the possibility that Madeleine was also abducted, if not why not?
F: Why should I accept it ?
A: Why shouldn't you?
F: Because that would be rather like comparing a sausage roll to a scone. They are both made with flour but further than that they're not the same thing at all.
****
So there we have it. Faithlilly cannot accept the possibility that Madeleine was abducted.
You seem to have gotten a little confused Alfie. You stared that because I agreed one abduction was possible then I must agree that Madeleine's was also possible. I told you I didn't HAVE to accept that. That is all.
-
You seem to have gotten a little confused Alfie. You stared that because I agreed one abduction was possible then I must agree that Madeleine's was also possible. I told you I didn't HAVE to accept that. That is all.
But it seems that you DO accept it after all, so all good. 8((()*/
-
Of course I have. The ones I have mocked and insulted deserve it, the only outcome they hope for is the incarceration of Madeleine's innocent parents whilst at the same time they ridicule those who hope that Madeleine will be eventually found alive. These are unpleasant people for sure.
How do you square saying the parents are innocent whilst also stating you concede an accidental death and cover up is a possibility? Just wondering, seeing as you seem to be of the pernickity sort.
-
But it seems that you DO accept it after all, so all good. 8((()*/
Possible but not probable ! Glad we got there in the end !
-
How do you square saying the parents are innocent whilst also stating you concede an accidental death and cover up is a possibility? Just wondering, seeing as you seem to be of the pernickity sort.
because in my opinion the most plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance (by far) is that she was abducted by a stranger.
-
Possible but not probable ! Glad we got there in the end !
Phew. So am I.
-
Phew. So am I.
What would we do without your little acerbic asides Eleanor ? It never fails to diffuse the tension !
-
Its a question of outlook.
I believe she is dead and will be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong.
Anyone who believes she is alive will be mortified if they find that they are wrong
I fervently hope that Madeleine McCann is alive and well ... if that makes me an idiot ... so be it.
However should she be found dead I most certainly would not be "mortified" I would be desperately saddened for her parents and all who knew and loved her but also hopeful that they might find closure.
-
What would we do without your little acerbic asides Eleanor ? It never fails to diffuse the tension !
Why, thank you, Faith. My pleasure.
-
Given that we are all agreed abduction is possible, and having established that there is only one known fact in the case ie: Madeleine has gone mssing, why then is abduction improbable?
-
Given that we are all agreed abduction is possible, and having established that there is only one known fact in the case ie: Madeleine has gone mssing, why then is abduction improbable?
You'd need a book to fully answer that one. But speaking just for myself I'd decided sometime in 2010 to abandon my cynicism. Then their book came out. I rushed to buy it, believe it or not. I was not impressed.
-
You'd need a book to fully answer that one. But speaking just for myself I'd decided sometime in 2010 to abandon my cynicism. Then their book came out. I rushed to buy it, believe it or not. I was not impressed.
Why would you need a book? You yourself said that there is only one known fact, which means (I assume) the rest can be ignored - so why is abduction improbable? Imagine you've written your book about it, now summarise a couple of key points why abduction is improbable for the back cover blurb.
-
You'd need a book to fully answer that one. But speaking just for myself I'd decided sometime in 2010 to abandon my cynicism. Then their book came out. I rushed to buy it, believe it or not. I was not impressed.
You have posted elsewhere Lyall ... "Fresh eyes will one day approach this case in a way or ways we all can't see."
It seems that you have overlooked the fact that "fresh eyes" have indeed studied Madeleine McCann's case in depth and reached conclusions which enabled them to determine that there was enough available evidence to merit reopening it.
Fresh eyes within Scotland Yard revealed evidence which had not been properly analysed and which led them to determine they were looking at a case of stranger abduction.
Independently of the SY review the Policia Judicairia based in Oporto, reached the conclusion that Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction.
The "fresh eyes" of internet detectives don't quite come into the same class as these two official bodies ... never have and never will.
I think both the PJ team of investigators and the SY team have fulfilled your criteria ~ they have reviewed the evidence ~ and as a result, both are searching for the person\s responsible for abducting Madeleine McCann.
-
You have posted elsewhere Lyall ... "Fresh eyes will one day approach this case in a way or ways we all can't see."
It seems that you have overlooked the fact that "fresh eyes" have indeed studied Madeleine McCann's case in depth and reached conclusions which enabled them to determine that there was enough available evidence to merit reopening it.
Fresh eyes within Scotland Yard revealed evidence which had not been properly analysed and which led them to determine they were looking at a case of stranger abduction.
Independently of the SY review the Policia Judicairia based in Oporto, reached the conclusion that Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction.
The "fresh eyes" of internet detectives don't quite come into the same class as these two official bodies ... never have and never will.
I think both the PJ team of investigators and the SY team have fulfilled your criteria ~ they have reviewed the evidence ~ and as a result, both are searching for the person\s responsible for abducting Madeleine McCann.
I think Lyall meant "fresh eyes" of a particular sceptic slant.
-
I was waiting for a response such as that.
Now tell me of a case which has had so much publicity and with nothing to show for it ?
Well as the investigation is still on going you cannot say they have nothing to show for it can you?
-
Its a question of outlook.
I believe she is dead and will be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong.
Anyone who believes she is alive will be mortified if they find that they are wrong
Is there anyone who totally believes she could be still alive? I hope she is, but there is still doubt in my mind.
If she is dead I would be extremely sorry for the family.
-
Well as the investigation is still on going you cannot say they have nothing to show for it can you?
So what have they found ?
Ah yes, an excuse to spend £2,000,000 more.
-
Well as the investigation is still on going you cannot say they have nothing to show for it can you?
Only yesterday Misty posted an update on the search for William Tyrell. Just a year after the event the Australians continue to pursue his case very actively. At the same stage of Madeleine's case events had already conspired to ensure that her case and the search for her would be officially 'shelved' ... or to use another word ... closed.
Perhaps if the theory subscribed to by the case co-ordinator had not taken over so completely; perhaps if the final forensic results had been waited for and properly analysed; the evidence could have been reviewed and the focus of the investigation could have been redirected to where the later PJ and SY teams are now.
Stranger abduction.
-
So what have they found ?
Ah yes, an excuse to spend £2,000,000 more.
An excuse? oh, I keep forgetting you know more than the detectives on the case.
-
Only yesterday Misty posted an update on the search for William Tyrell. Just a year after the event the Australians continue to pursue his case very actively. At the same stage of Madeleine's case events had already conspired to ensure that her case and the search for her would be officially 'shelved' ... or to use another word ... closed.
Perhaps if the theory subscribed to by the case co-ordinator had not taken over so completely; perhaps if the final forensic results had been waited for and properly analysed; the evidence could have been reviewed and the focus of the investigation could have been redirected to where the later PJ and SY teams are now.
Stranger abduction.
I agree Brietta, but you know Stephen he thinks he knows better.
-
An excuse? oh, I keep forgetting you know more than the detectives on the case.
and what if they continue into a dead end Lace ?
What then ?
More money ?
-
So what have they found ?
Ah yes, an excuse to spend £2,000,000 more.
If you work it out in manhours and sling in something sensible as an internal rate £2MM does not go far with a squad like that (30+). It could all be used up in three months 8(0(*
-
If you work it out in manhours and sling in something sensible as an internal rate £2MM does not go far with a squad like that (30+). It could all be used up in three months 8(0(*
More than possibly.
Are the flights to the Algarve and elsewhere included in the funding, or are they listed as expenses, along with accomodation ?
-
So what have they found ?
Ah yes, an excuse to spend £2,000,000 more.
Can you think of any reason why SY would need to come up with an ''excuse'' - (as opposed to having a genuine 'reason') to carry on with the investigation? What would be the thinking behind making a decision to find an 'excuse' to carry on? Who would benefit from such a pointless exercise? Do tell.
-
So what have they found ?
Ah yes, an excuse to spend £2,000,000 more.
You asked that question yesterday ... no doubt you will ask it another couple of times today ... then you will repeat the cycle again tomorrow. How sad for you ... how b_o_r_i_n_g for the rest of us.
I'll try once more.
If Scotland Yard have received funding for another year, it means there is justification for it.
If you wish to interpret that as an 'excuse' to continue searching for a British child missing abroad ... who was so badly let down by the conduct of her case that there wasn't half a dozen, or even a dozen loose ends left to tie up ... but a three figure total of leads which had not been followed through originally ... that is your prerogative.
One wonders why you are so resistant to the PJ and SY finding out what happened to Madeleine all those stolen years ago.
As an undoubted seeker after truth ... don't you want her found ... and aren't you the teeniest bit curious about who actually abducted her?
Or does it worry you that over eight years of prejudice are unravelling before your very eyes?
-
You have posted elsewhere Lyall ... "Fresh eyes will one day approach this case in a way or ways we all can't see."
It seems that you have overlooked the fact that "fresh eyes" have indeed studied Madeleine McCann's case in depth and reached conclusions which enabled them to determine that there was enough available evidence to merit reopening it.
Fresh eyes within Scotland Yard revealed evidence which had not been properly analysed and which led them to determine they were looking at a case of stranger abduction.
Independently of the SY review the Policia Judicairia based in Oporto, reached the conclusion that Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction.
The "fresh eyes" of internet detectives don't quite come into the same class as these two official bodies ... never have and never will.
I think both the PJ team of investigators and the SY team have fulfilled your criteria ~ they have reviewed the evidence ~ and as a result, both are searching for the person\s responsible for abducting Madeleine McCann.
Yes.
Good post.
-
You asked that question yesterday ... no doubt you will ask it another couple of times today ... then you will repeat the cycle again tomorrow. How sad for you ... how b_o_r_i_n_g for the rest of us.
I'll try once more.
If Scotland Yard have received funding for another year, it means there is justification for it.
If you wish to interpret that as an 'excuse' to continue searching for a British child missing abroad ... who was so badly let down by the conduct of her case that there wasn't half a dozen, or even a dozen loose ends left to tie up ... but a three figure total of leads which had not been followed through originally ... that is your prerogative.
One wonders why you are so resistant to the PJ and SY finding out what happened to Madeleine all those stolen years ago.
As an undoubted seeker after truth ... don't you want her found ... and aren't you the teeniest bit curious about who actually abducted her?
Or does it worry you that over eight years of prejudice are unravelling before your very eyes?
What is B O R I N G is the repetition of the word ABDUCTION, especially as the crime remains unknown.
As before, you and others try to link this case to others, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to link them.
As to being badly let down, you need to look no further than her parents.
-
What is B O R I N G is the repetition of the word ABDUCTION, especially as the crime remains unknown.
As before, you and others try to link this case to others, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to link them.
As to being badly let down, you need to look no further than her parents.
We've established that abduction is a possibility and as no one can tell me why it is not, then it will continue to be discussed. Have you got a problem with that?
-
We've established that abduction is a possibility and as no one can tell me why it is not, then it will continue to be discussed. Have you got a problem with that?
You can discuss it until the cows come home, it won't make it the truth of what happened, anymore than you will accept the accidental death or walking out of the apartment scenarios.
-
You can discuss it until the cows come home, it won't make it the truth of what happened, anymore than you will accept the accidental death or walking out of the apartment scenarios.
Got it.
Shall we all agree to shut up then??
-
You can discuss it until the cows come home, it won't make it the truth of what happened, anymore than you will accept the accidental death or walking out of the apartment scenarios.
That's the problem.
You haven't.
-
That's the problem.
You haven't.
Come on ferryman, now provide absolute evidence of abduction.
-
What is B O R I N G is the repetition of the word ABDUCTION, especially as the crime remains unknown.
As before, you and others try to link this case to others, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to link them.
As to being badly let down, you need to look no further than her parents.
As I said ... b_o_r_i_n_g ... we have heard it all before. I'll give you that you are a trier. Brainwashing by constant repetition has been known to work ... not when it causes a yawn and the eyes to glaze over though.
Actually I am not the main culprit for the use of the word "ABDUCTION".
It seems the Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard are guilty of exactly the same sin.
The difference between them and me is that they have the power ... and they are in the process of using their power to do something about it. SY and the PJ are investigating abduction and are looking not only for Madeleine but the person\s responsible for abducting her.
Why does this fact cause you such obvious angst?
-
As I said ... b_o_r_i_n_g ... we have heard it all before. I'll give you that you are a trier. Brainwashing by constant repetition has been known to work ... not when it causes a yawn and the eyes to glaze over though.
Actually I am not the main culprit for the use of the word "ABDUCTION".
It seems the Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard are guilty of exactly the same sin.
The difference between them and me is that they have the power ... and they are in the process of using their power to do something about it. SY and the PJ are investigating abduction and are looking not only for Madeleine but the person\s responsible for abducting her.
Why does this fact cause you such obvious angst?
How many times have the mccanns supporters cried abduction.
B o r i n g isn't the word for it.
Talk about attempted brainwashing...................
Redwood said he believed in abduction, he also she could have died in the apartment. Likewise he also said, she could be alive or dead.
Great policing.
-
More than possibly.
Are the flights to the Algarve and elsewhere included in the funding, or are they listed as expenses, along with accomodation ?
Allegedly DCI Wall put a stop to the monthly visits early doors in her incumbency. See my post on latest news thread.
-
Allegedly DCI Wall put a stop to the monthly visits early doors in her incumbency. See my post on latest news thread.
Thanks Alice.
-
How many times have the mccanns supporters cried abduction.
B o r i n g isn't the word for it.
Talk about attempted brainwashing...................
Redwood said he believed in abduction, he also she could have died in the apartment. Likewise he also said, she could be alive or dead.
Great policing.
Stephen, you may not have noticed but this thread is for those who dismiss the possibility of abduction to tell us why abduction (boring as it is to you to even contemplate) is not possible in this case.
If the topic of abduction bores you so much may I suggest you avoid threads in which it is the main topic of conversation?
-
Stephen, you may not have noticed but this thread is for those who dismiss the possibility of abduction to tell us why abduction (boring as it is to you to even contemplate) is not possible in this case.
If the topic of abduction bores you so much may I suggest you avoid threads in which it is the main topic of conversation?
Are you pretending to be a moderator ?
You can suggest all you wish.
So please remind me what actually is the evidence for abduction, that is undeniable ?
-
Stephen, you may not have noticed but this thread is for those who dismiss the possibility of abduction to tell us why abduction (boring as it is to you to even contemplate) is not possible in this case.
If the topic of abduction bores you so much may I suggest you avoid threads in which it is the main topic of conversation?
Where does it say that?
-
Are you pretending to be a moderator ?
You can suggest all you wish.
So please remind me what actually is the evidence for abduction, that is undeniable ?
No, I'm not pretending to be a moderator - I am simply giving you some advice to help you avoid things which you find too boring to contemplate, such as the abduction of a small child from her bed. There is no cast iron proof of her abduction but when one weighs up all the known facts of this case, it's the most logical theory. Now tell me why it isn't.
-
Are you pretending to be a moderator ?
You can suggest all you wish.
So please remind me what actually is the evidence for abduction, that is undeniable ?
I think this may be the perfect thread for you to submit the reasoning behind your assertion that Madeleine McCann was not abducted.
Should be easy enough since you appear to have such firm views on the subject.
-
Logistically it's hard to describe circumstances in which abduction actually occurred and the scene of Madeleine's disappearance was as described. I can think of 1 maybe 2 scenarios where it could have happened, same as I can think of scenarios where the parents dunnit. It really comes down to your belief/instinct imo.
-
No, I'm not pretending to be a moderator - I am simply giving you some advice to help you avoid things which you find too boring to contemplate, such as the abduction of a small child from her bed. There is no cast iron proof of her abduction but when one weighs up all the known facts of this case, it's the most logical theory. Now tell me why it isn't.
Why is it the most logical theory , when there is absolutely nothing to back it up ?
-
Where does it say that?
This thread is for those who have scoffed at the idea of abduction on the grounds that an abductor would not be able to remove a sleeping child from its bed without waking it and it screaming the place down and also disturbing the nearby sleeping sibling and then exiting via a window, it's also for those who claim that if the parents had been present an abduction would not have been possible. If that's not you, then this thread isn't for you.
-
Why is it the most logical theory , when there is absolutely nothing to back it up ?
Why don't you start a new thread to discuss this separately - this thread is for doubters to explain why they think abduction simply could not have happened as described by the McCanns and their supporters.
-
This thread is for those who have scoffed at the idea of abduction on the grounds that an abductor would not be able to remove a sleeping child from its bed without waking it and it screaming the place down and also disturbing the nearby sleeping sibling and then exiting via a window, it's also for those who claim that if the parents had been present an abduction would not have been possible. If that's not you, then this thread isn't for you.
A door was unlocked, so why use a window ?
-
A door was unlocked, so why use a window ?
Is that it? Is that your reason why abduction is not possible?
-
Is that it? Is that your reason why abduction is not possible?
Do you really think that is the only reason ? @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Logistically it's hard to describe circumstances in which abduction actually occurred and the scene of Madeleine's disappearance was as described. I can think of 1 maybe 2 scenarios where it could have happened, same as I can think of scenarios where the parents dunnit. It really comes down to your belief/instinct imo.
It is usual to eliminate those with closest access to a missing child in the early stages of the investigation; I presume it would have been one of the first things a competent investigation would have addressed.
Subsequent 'new evidence' provided by the dogs and more esoterically an alleged dream which directly led to the parents' arguido status rank as prime examples of amateurism and desperation.
Therefore why at this stage any mention of or credence should be given to the discredited theory central to a failed investigation is beyond my understanding.
I think revisiting it may lean more to prejudice than "belief or instinct" ... as well as flagrantly ignoring the fact there is enough actual evidence to warrant the PJ and SY mounting new investigations in which the parents of Madeleine McCann feature only as innocent victims of the crime against their daughter.
-
Why don't you start a new thread to discuss this separately - this thread is for doubters to explain why they think abduction simply could not have happened as described by the McCanns and their supporters.
The thread title is 'for those who dismiss the possibility of abduction'. Judging by the first post on the thread it's purpose was to show that abductions can happen when a child is asleep in the same room as a sibling and the parents are on the premises. Looking at the quoted case more carefully, a cut fly screen seems to be the only evidence that the girl was abducted through the window. Until someone admits they did that (and no-one has as far as I can see), another explanation is still possible. Perhaps more details will emerge as the trial progresses.
As to the McCann case, no-one (as far as I know) has denied that abduction is a possibility, just improbable. The reasons are many and have been posted before on other threads.
-
It is usual to eliminate those with closest access to a missing child in the early stages of the investigation; I presume it would have been one of the first things a competent investigation would have addressed.
Subsequent 'new evidence' provided by the dogs and more esoterically an alleged dream which directly led to the parents' arguido status rank as prime examples of amateurism and desperation.
Therefore why at this stage any mention of or credence should be given to the discredited theory central to a failed investigation is beyond my understanding.
I think revisiting it may lean more to prejudice than "belief or instinct" ... as well as flagrantly ignoring the fact there is enough actual evidence to warrant the PJ and SY mounting new investigations in which the parents of Madeleine McCann feature only as innocent victims of the crime against their daughter.
Some people wish to wipe the original investigation from memory. Perhaps it's time to wipe departed DCI Redwood's pronouncements from memory also, as they may be irrelevant years after he made them? As to the PJ, I don't know what they are investigating as I have seen no direct quotes from them on the subject. I am happy to be enlightened if I've missed their stated objectives.
-
This thread is for those who have scoffed at the idea of abduction on the grounds that an abductor would not be able to remove a sleeping child from its bed without waking it and it screaming the place down and also disturbing the nearby sleeping sibling and then exiting via a window, it's also for those who claim that if the parents had been present an abduction would not have been possible. If that's not you, then this thread isn't for you.
Not for me then you will be pleased to hear. Typically far too prescriptive for my tastes.
-
The thread title is 'for those who dismiss the possibility of abduction'. Judging by the first post on the thread it's purpose was to show that abductions can happen when a child is asleep in the same room as a sibling and the parents are on the premises. Looking at the quoted case more carefully, a cut fly screen seems to be the only evidence that the girl was abducted through the window. Until someone admits they did that (and no-one has as far as I can see), another explanation is still possible. Perhaps more details will emerge as the trial progresses.
As to the McCann case, no-one (as far as I know) has denied that abduction is a possibility, just improbable. The reasons are many and have been posted before on other threads.
Are you of the opinion then that there is a possibility the girl in the case I posted details of was NOT abducted, but that she cut her own way out of her window? Or maybe you think the parents did it? That would be a fairly typical conclusion for some on here to draw....
-
Not for me then you will be pleased to hear. Typically far too prescriptive for my tastes.
8((()*/
-
The thread title is 'for those who dismiss the possibility of abduction'. Judging by the first post on the thread it's purpose was to show that abductions can happen when a child is asleep in the same room as a sibling and the parents are on the premises. Looking at the quoted case more carefully, a cut fly screen seems to be the only evidence that the girl was abducted through the window. Until someone admits they did that (and no-one has as far as I can see), another explanation is still possible. Perhaps more details will emerge as the trial progresses.
As to the McCann case, no-one (as far as I know) has denied that abduction is a possibility, just improbable. The reasons are many and have been posted before on other threads.
What is the key reason for you that abduction is improbable?
-
This thread is for those who have scoffed at the idea of abduction on the grounds that an abductor would not be able to remove a sleeping child from its bed without waking it and it screaming the place down and also disturbing the nearby sleeping sibling and then exiting via a window, it's also for those who claim that if the parents had been present an abduction would not have been possible. If that's not you, then this thread isn't for you.
Nope, the thread is about what the title says which isn't so prescriptive.
-
Nope, the thread is about what the title says which isn't so prescriptive.
As I started the thread surely I am entitled to state my reason for posting it in the first place?
-
Are you of the opinion then that there is a possibility the girl in the case I posted details of was NOT abducted, but that she cut her own way out of her window? Or maybe you think the parents did it? That would be a fairly typical conclusion for some on here to draw....
Let's see if they've got the right man this time (their second time of trying) shall we?
-
As I started the thread surely I am entitled to state my reason for posting it in the first place?
Not on page 15.
-
Not on page 15.
This thread is entitled: "For those who dismiss the possibility of abduction..." - now perhaps you can explain how the following contradicts the thread title:
"This thread is for those who have scoffed at the idea of abduction on the grounds that an abductor would not be able to remove a sleeping child from its bed without waking it and it screaming the place down and also disturbing the nearby sleeping sibling and then exiting via a window, it's also for those who claim that if the parents had been present an abduction would not have been possible. If that's not you, then this thread isn't for you"
which basically expands on the thread title. What exactly is your objection? Apart obviously from your general dislike of me, my views and my support for the McCanns? Do tell.
-
Let's see if they've got the right man this time (their second time of trying) shall we?
I do hope so, for the child's parents sake if no one else's. Her PJ top has his DNA on it, and there is a less than one billion chance of it being anyone else's. Of course there's always the possibility that this convicted child killer (who lived in the child's neighbourhood) just happened upon the top after she had ripped it off (in a fit of pique before disappearing into the night) and kindly folded it up and put it into a neighbour's mailbox.
-
This thread is entitled: "For those who dismiss the possibility of abduction..." - now perhaps you can explain how the following contradicts the thread title:
"This thread is for those who have scoffed at the idea of abduction on the grounds that an abductor would not be able to remove a sleeping child from its bed without waking it and it screaming the place down and also disturbing the nearby sleeping sibling and then exiting via a window, it's also for those who claim that if the parents had been present an abduction would not have been possible. If that's not you, then this thread isn't for you"
which basically expands on the thread title. What exactly is your objection? Apart obviously from your general dislike of me, my views and my support for the McCanns? Do tell.
Page 1 would have done, all you presented was an "abduction" story from a newspaper.
-
Page 1 would have done, all you presented was an "abduction" story from a newspaper.
If you read my posts on page one you will see where I was going with the thread.
-
If you read my posts on page one you will see where I was going with the thread.
Where I saw you going with this thread was to absolve the parents of any responsibility by saying it didn't matter if they were in the building or not- Maddie still could have been abducted. Am I correct?
-
Where I saw you going with this thread was to absolve the parents of any responsibility by saying it didn't matter if they were in the building or not- Maddie still could have been abducted. Am I correct?
No, this is what I wrote -
Not only that, but the parents were in the building at the time and the father had checked on the children several times during the night which shows that if an abductor is determined enough he will find a way to take what he wants regardless of the risks or obstacles.
-
because in my opinion the most plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance (by far) is that she was abducted by a stranger.
Thanks, you are entitled to your opinion thoughts and beliefs but not entitled to declare it as a fact that they are innocent, and denigrate those who thnk different, as no law enforcement has ever said this, and if it was a proven fact no one would be here or in other places arguing the ins and outs, you should really preface that statement with IMO and also not get hot under the collar and start your accusations and interrogations whenever anyone dares even insinuate that their beliefs and thoughts and opinions might be different to your own
Now, as per your OP, the fact that an abduction can occur from home does not = that people should accept the probability that this happened in this case, as there are many reasons various people have in mind for thnking there was none, that is not to say the possibility does not exist but really, that is all you are left with, a possiblity with not much evidence, well, none much tbh..so IMO the kind of thread is a bit pointless as the answer to the OP should have gone without saying
-
Thanks, you are entitled to your opinion thoughts and beliefs but not entitled to declare it as a fact that they are innocent, and denigrate those who thnk different, as no law enforcement has ever said this, and if it was a proven fact no one would be here or in other places arguing the ins and outs, you should really preface that statement with IMO and also not get hot under the collar and start your accusations and interrogations whenever anyone dares even insinuate that their beliefs and thoughts and opinions might be different to your own
Now, as per your OP, the fact that an abduction can occur from home does not = that people should accept the probability that this happened in this case, as there are many reasons various people have in mind for thnking there was none, that is not to say the possibility does not exist but really, that is all you are left with, a possiblity with not much evidence, well, none much tbh..so IMO the kind of thread is a bit pointless as the answer to the OP should have gone without saying
Redwood has clearly stated the mccanns are innocent
-
Redwood has clearly stated the mccanns are innocent
In case you hadn't noticed this is Redwood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6N3o4TDYsI
-
In case you hadn't noticed this is Redwood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6N3o4TDYsI
I know perfectly well who Redwood is....
-
Thanks, you are entitled to your opinion thoughts and beliefs but not entitled to declare it as a fact that they are innocent, and denigrate those who thnk different, as no law enforcement has ever said this, and if it was a proven fact no one would be here or in other places arguing the ins and outs, you should really preface that statement with IMO and also not get hot under the collar and start your accusations and interrogations whenever anyone dares even insinuate that their beliefs and thoughts and opinions might be different to your own
Now, as per your OP, the fact that an abduction can occur from home does not = that people should accept the probability that this happened in this case, as there are many reasons various people have in mind for thnking there was none, that is not to say the possibility does not exist but really, that is all you are left with, a possiblity with not much evidence, well, none much tbh..so IMO the kind of thread is a bit pointless as the answer to the OP should have gone without saying
the McCanns are innocent. Fact. If they are not innocent then what is their current status?
This thread was about possibilities not probabilities. Some people claim abduction in this case is not possible, the case I linked to shows that it is possible. If you find this thread pointless you are under no obligation to continue contibuting to it.
-
the McCanns are innocent. Fact. If they are not innocent then what is their current status?
This thread was about possibilities not probabilities. Some people claim abduction in this case is not possible, the case I linked to shows that it is possible. If you find this thread pointless you are under no obligation to continue contibuting to it.
Not so fast cowboy.
Let's recap:
You said some people want the innocent Mccanns to be incarcerated.
I asked you how you square stating they are innocent while accepting they might have been involved
You replied, because you believe abduction is the by far more probable theory and IYO they are innocent
Now you are changing it again and stating as fact they are innocent
As to your claim that some people say it is not possible she was abducted and you showing that an abduction from home took place therefore proved it is possible is suggesting the reason that some people say it's impossible is because it is said she was taken from her bed when I've already said there are various reasons!
Ps I will contribute in whichever thread I so wish to make any point and never consider myself under "obligation"
As to what ther status is in police speak or law, I have no idea and I guess neither do you
-
There was hostility and more from early 2007 when it started getting talked about in general forums n an info vacuum except what was prescribed by the MSM, to anybody who even voiced an opinion which was remotely critical, or had a theory or said anythng against the media script put out that was demonstrably wrong or didn't make sense, and continues to this day, which I find very strange indeed but there you go, just goes to show some want others to not think or voice their thoughts but think and voice THEIR thoughts, ,pretty scary in a way,we live in the Internet age, get over it
says the person who's just used her last few posts on this thread telling me what I am and am not not allowed to say vis-a-vis the McCanns, bossy boots!!
-
Not so fast cowboy.
Let's recap:
You said some people want the innocent Mccanns to be incarcerated.
I asked you how you square stating they are innocent while accepting they might have been involved
You replied, because you believe abduction is the by far more probable theory and IYO they are innocent
Now you are changing it again and stating as fact they are innocent
As to your claim that some people say it is not possible she was abducted and you showing that an abduction from home took place therefore proved it is possible is suggesting the reason that some people say it's impossible is because it is said she was taken from her bed when I've already said there are various reasons!
Ps I will contribute in whichever thread I so wish to make any point and never consider myself under "obligation"
As to what ther status is in police speak or law, I have no idea and I guess neither do you
yes I do have an idea, it is innocent.
-
yes I do have an idea, it is innocent.
Oh dear.
Innocent of what ?
She hasn't been charged.
-
Thanks, you are entitled to your opinion thoughts and beliefs but not entitled to declare it as a fact that they are innocent, and denigrate those who thnk different, as no law enforcement has ever said this, and if it was a proven fact no one would be here or in other places arguing the ins and outs, you should really preface that statement with IMO and also not get hot under the collar and start your accusations and interrogations whenever anyone dares even insinuate that their beliefs and thoughts and opinions might be different to your own
Now, as per your OP, the fact that an abduction can occur from home does not = that people should accept the probability that this happened in this case, as there are many reasons various people have in mind for thnking there was none, that is not to say the possibility does not exist but really, that is all you are left with, a possiblity with not much evidence, well, none much tbh..so IMO the kind of thread is a bit pointless as the answer to the OP should have gone without saying
This from the person who called what I posted 'a load of bollocks'.
-
Oh dear.
Innocent of what ?
She hasn't been charged.
I was talking about the McCanns plural - they are innocent, and yes, well observed - they haven't been charged - with anything, ever - nor are they ever likely to be. Get over it.
-
This from the person who called what I posted 'a load of bollocks'.
She is nothing if not extremely rude.
-
I was talking about the McCanns plural - they are innocent, and yes, well observed - they haven't been charged - with anything, ever - nor are they ever likely to be. Get over it.
Innocent of what Alfred ?
They haven't been charged.
How can they be 'innocent' of any crime they haven't been charged with ?
and as you would have noticed, if you had been paying attention, I don't expect the mccanns to be charged, bar some unexpected turn in the case, which is extremely unlikely.
-
Innocent of what Alfred ?
They haven't been charged.
How can they be 'innocent' of any crime they haven't been charged with ?
and as you would have noticed, if you had been paying attention, I don't expect the mccanns to be charged, bar some unexpected turn in the case, which is extremely unlikely.
No, they weren't charged you are right, though you would think they had been by what some people say. There was no evidence on which to charge them. Amaral lied when he said the DNA matched 100% to Madeleine hoping Kate would confess but she cried and asked if Madeleine was dead instead, not the answer he was hoping for was it.
-
No, they weren't charged you are right, though you would think they had been by what some people say. There was no evidence on which to charge them. Amaral lied when he said the DNA matched 100% to Madeleine hoping Kate would confess but she cried and asked if Madeleine was dead instead, not the answer he was hoping for was it.
Basically, there is no evidence to charge anyone, and I can't see that changing.
-
She is nothing if not extremely rude.
and you are not rude??
-
Innocent of what Alfred ?
They haven't been charged.
How can they be 'innocent' of any crime they haven't been charged with ?
and as you would have noticed, if you had been paying attention, I don't expect the mccanns to be charged, bar some unexpected turn in the case, which is extremely unlikely.
innocent of any criminal involvement in the disappearance of maddie
-
innocent of any criminal involvement in the disappearance of maddie
They have not been charged.
It has not been ascertained who is responsible as yet, but you know that.
-
They have not been charged.
It has not been ascertained who is responsible as yet, but you know that.
they don't need to be charged to be considered innocent
-
they don't need to be charged to be considered innocent
As I said dave, the perpetrator remains unknown.
The last people to see Madeleine alive are still the mccanns. No other person or persons have been identified.
-
As I said dave, the perpetrator remains unknown.
The last people to see Madeleine alive are still the mccanns. No other person or persons have been identified.
exactly...... they are the only people who saw her the day/night she vanished
-
exactly...... they are the only people who saw her the day/night she vanished
Other people saw her the day she vanished carly, the crθche employees for eg plus other friends of theirs.
-
As I said dave, the perpetrator remains unknown.
The last people to see Madeleine alive are still the mccanns. No other person or persons have been identified.
that means absolutely nothing...the last person to see Ben Needham was his grandmother...is she still a suspect
-
that means absolutely nothing...the last person to see Ben Needham was his grandmother...is she still a suspect
The last person to see Louise Bell was her father - I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that some people think it's more likely that he dunnit than the local child killer.
-
You don't have to have been in Portugal at the time to have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance therefore by Stephen's logic the entire world is not innocent regarding this crime. We are all suspects!!!!
-
Actual innocence or absolute innocence.
-
You don't have to have been in Portugal at the time to have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance therefore by Stephen's logic the entire world is not innocent regarding this crime. We are all suspects!!!!
Your playing games alfred.
The truth of Madeleine's disappearance invariably lies closer to 'home'.
-
Your playing games alfred.
The truth of Madeleine's disappearance invariably lies closer to 'home'.
No it doesnt
-
No it doesnt
yes it does they were the last people to see maddie that evening
-
The last person to see Madeleine on evening May 3rd was Madeleine's abductor.
-
The last person to see Madeleine on evening May 3rd was Madeleine's abductor.
and you have proof of this??
-
As we don't know what happened to Madeleine, we cannot say who was the last person to see her, or indeed when she was last seen.
If she is a live and well, she will have been seen by somebody very recently.
-
As we don't know what happened to Madeleine, we cannot say who was the last person to see her, or indeed when she was last seen.
If she is a live and well, she will have been seen by somebody very recently.
exactly so saying a abductor is the last one to have saw her isnt a true post either
-
Your playing games alfred.
The truth of Madeleine's disappearance invariably lies closer to 'home'.
What does that mean?
-
As we don't know what happened to Madeleine, we cannot say who was the last person to see her, or indeed when she was last seen.
If she is a live and well, she will have been seen by somebody very recently.
I do.
The case files.
The prosecutor's archiving dispatch
The PJ's final report.
A second joint enquiry that is not remotely considering the McCanns nor any of their friends.
That'll do ....
-
I do.
The case files.
The prosecutor's archiving dispatch
The PJ's final report.
A second joint enquiry that is not remotely considering the McCanns nor any of their friends.
That'll do ....
How does that answer the question of who last saw her?
-
How does that answer the question of who last saw her?
The last person to see Madeleine on May 3rd was her abductor
-
The last person to see Madeleine on May 3rd was her abductor
But what if her abductor then passed or sold her onto someone else?
-
The last person to see Madeleine on evening May 3rd was Madeleine's abductor.
It seems mccann supporters complain when the 'non-believers' repeat statements, but have no difficulty in turning a blind eye to when they do it.
So ferryman, how many times have you used the word 'abductor' ?
-
The last person to see Madeleine on May 3rd was her abductor
Deja vu. ?{)(**
-
I do.
The case files.
The prosecutor's archiving dispatch
The PJ's final report.
A second joint enquiry that is not remotely considering the McCanns nor any of their friends.
That'll do ....
...and where in the archiving report does it say Madeleine was abducted ???
-
But what if her abductor then passed or sold her onto someone else?
Don't understand the point of your question?
-
Don't understand the point of your question?
If the hypothetical abductor sold Madeleine on to others, these people would be seeing her long after this abductor departed the scene, so the abductor would not be the last person to see her.
-
...and where in the archiving report does it say Madeleine was abducted ???
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
The PJ final report says that woke and wandered was considered as a remote possibility but ruled out.
-
It seems mccann supporters complain when the 'non-believers' repeat statements, but have no difficulty in turning a blind eye to when they do it.
So ferryman, how many times have you used the word 'abductor' ?
**Snip
He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.
He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger". DCI Redwood
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
What is it you are failing to comprehend about the present investigations into Madeleine McCann's abduction?
-
**Snip
He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.
He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger". DCI Redwood
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
What is it you are failing to comprehend about the present investigations into Madeleine McCann's abduction?
Actually, the report stated there was insufficient evidence to bring any prosecution, and Redwood had nothing to do with that.
Now provide the evidence of abduction, rather than typing the mantra, again and again and again.
-
Actually, the report stated there was insufficient evidence to bring any prosecution, and Redwood had nothing to do with that.
Now provide the evidence of abduction, rather than typing the mantra, again and again and again.
Zero evidence (to support a prosecution).
Is your misrepresentation of that fact ignorant?
Or deliberate?
-
Actually, the report stated there was insufficient evidence to bring any prosecution, and Redwood had nothing to do with that.
Now provide the evidence of abduction, rather than typing the mantra, again and again and again.
The evidence is that the Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard have invested a great deal of time, personnel and money into searching for an abductor.
Why don't you tell us all why you think there wasn't one ... opprobrium towards the parents of the missing child doesn't count.
-
If the hypothetical abductor sold Madeleine on to others, these people would be seeing her long after this abductor departed the scene, so the abductor would not be the last person to see her.
Key words (of my earlier post) On May 3rd
-
Zero evidence (to support a prosecution).
Is your misrepresentation of that fact ignorant?
Or deliberate?
Is your repeated use of the word 'abductor' just a sign that you are ignorant of the facts ?
Now, yet again where is the evidence of an abductor ?
Since evidently, SY have not found one.
-
The evidence is that the Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard have invested a great deal of time, personnel and money into searching for an abductor.
Why don't you tell us all why you think there wasn't one ... opprobrium towards the parents of the missing child doesn't count.
Have they found an abductor or abductors ???
I have every sympathy for Madeleine.
Zip for the parents who left her and her siblings to their own devices.
-
Is your repeated use of the word 'abductor' just a sign that you are ignorant of the facts ?
Now, yet again where is the evidence of an abductor ?
Since evidently, SY have not found one.
I am very happy to believe what Scotland Yard have said.
We aren't you?
-
I am very happy to believe what Scotland Yard have said.
We aren't you?
What have they found ferryman ?
..and you certainly know the answer.
-
Have they found an abductor or abductors ???
I have every sympathy for Madeleine.
Zip for the parents who left her and her siblings to their own devices.
ditto maddie was a child kate and gerry were supposed to be resposible adults and were not it led to the vanishing of a child i dont understand why people think they are heros
-
**Snip
He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.
He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger". DCI Redwood
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
What is it you are failing to comprehend about the present investigations into Madeleine McCann's abduction?
It's a shame SY haven't managed to prove what they said 3 years ago, isn't it?
-
It's a shame SY haven't managed to prove what they said 3 years ago, isn't it?
But they are very nearly there - they just need another few years and countless millions of pounds and they'll have it sewn up, or should that be stitched up ?
-
But they are very nearly there - they just need another few years and countless millions of pounds
Perhaps DCI Wall has taken it all back to zero again..............I'm no expert, but DCI Redwood did seem to get over-excited over nothing much.
-
It's a shame SY haven't managed to prove what they said 3 years ago, isn't it?
What they said 3 years ago doesn't need to be proved
It needs to be disproved.
By what dint of inverted thinking does the maxim of innocent until proven guilty become guilty till proven innocent?
-
What they said 3 years ago doesn't need to be proved
It needs to be disproved.
By what dint of inverted thinking does the maxim of innocent until proven guilty become guilty till proven innocent?
Nope. Abduction by a stranger needs to be proved to be correct.
-
Nope. Abduction by a stranger needs to be proved to be correct.
and since no one knows whatever did happen that night because their was no adult supervison no on will probably never know
-
Perhaps DCI Wall has taken it all back to zero again..............I'm no expert, but DCI Redwood did seem to get over-excited over nothing much.
According to the scuttlebutt DCI Wall has been instrumental in raising one ILOR and has suspended the monthly meetings that DCI Redwood set up with "opposite numbers" in Portugal.
-
Nope. Abduction by a stranger needs to be proved to be correct.
So you subscribe to the fascist doctrine of guilty till proven innocent!
Why am I not surprised? ....
-
and since no one knows whatever did happen that night because their was no adult supervison no on will probably never know
I think we can take it that someone knows exactly what happened to Madeleine McCann ... from which door was used to why the shutter was raised and the window opened to where she was taken. Nobody bothered too much about looking for him at the time, if they had there is a high probability we would have known who the carriers ~ spotty man ~ blonde men ~ burglars ~ charity collectors were, either some or all.
But we don't.
With any luck maybe the team from Porto and the team from London will give us a result. But at the least they are looking, and good luck to them.
-
So you subscribe to the fascist doctrine of guilty till proven innocent!
Why am I not surprised? ....
There is a part of English law which works on pretty much the same broad principle.
-
There is a part of English law which works on pretty much the same broad principle.
Which part is that, then?
-
Which part is that, then?
Try Health and Safety Law. The bit where someone is maimed or dies not the bits stupid people take the p**s out of.
-
Try Health and Safety Law. The bit where someone is maimed or dies not the bits stupid people take the p**s out of.
Provide a specific cite.
-
There is a part of English law which works on pretty much the same broad principle.
Is it appropriate to be referencing health and safety law with regard to the case of a missing child?
-
Perhaps DCI Wall has taken it all back to zero again..............I'm no expert, but DCI Redwood did seem to get over-excited over nothing much.
nuff said.
-
Is it appropriate to be referencing health and safety law with regard to the case of a missing child?
Only because ferryman made some jibe about "fascist" and "guilty until proved innocent" to another poster.
I merely pointed out that under English health and safety legislation if there is a maiming or a death guilty until proved innocent is pretty much the case, cite or no cite. Study it yourself or talk to someone who has been the defendant then you will wake up. I don't think England is particularly fascist despite that do you?
-
nuff said.
I admit it too, unlike some who try to persuade us they have some superior knowledge or reasoning ability. There are no experts on here as far as I can see.
-
Only because ferryman made some jibe about "fascist" and "guilty until proved innocent" to another poster.
I merely pointed out that under English health and safety legislation if there is a maiming or a death guilty until proved innocent is pretty much the case, cite or no cite. Study it yourself or talk to someone who has been the defendant then you will wake up. I don't think England is particularly fascist despite that do you?
The final PJ report dismissed woke and wandered.
So, aside from securing a conviction (which, of course, would have to be proved) why should anyone have to prove abduction (by person(s) unknown)?
-
The final PJ report dismissed woke and wandered.
So, aside from securing a conviction (which, of course, would have to be proved) why should anyone have to prove abduction (by person(s) unknown)?
The cause of her disappearance has not been ascertained in, or in court.
-
The cause of her disappearance has not been ascertained in, or in court.
The McCanns and their friends have been ruled out.
-
The McCanns and their friends have been ruled out.
Yet SY have found nothing, and there is no indication as with other people who were interviewed, the mccanns or associates were ever questioned.
-
yes I do have an idea, it is innocent.
Having an opinion can never be passed of as fact, as was done by you when you switched from sayng you had one to stating the other It is not bossy to point this simple thing out. If you can quote any law enforcement or judicial officer/official (or point of law)who has stated as much you might have a case for saying it is FACT (caps yours not mine). You're not obliged to answer either. Just recapping, again.FACT.
8((()*/
PS there's a saying people in glass houses shouldn't really throw stones either.And if you do reply to this post be assured I won't be as this thread should not be derailed by your offended sensibilities when confronted with your own words.
-
Yet SY have found nothing, and there is no indication as with other people who were interviewed, the mccanns or associates were ever questioned.
Scotland Yard had to go back to the very beginning of Madeleine McCann's case and found almost two hundred leads which had not been followed. How did they manage to do that?
Scotland Yard also found Tannerman and spoke to him? Extraordinary don't you think if he was the only person spoken to during their review?
I think it is a particularly obtuse assumption to make that because there was no publicity about people being interviewed that this was not carried out discretely particularly when dealing with British Nationals who were at the heart of events.
-
Scotland Yard had to go back to the very beginning of Madeleine McCann's case and found almost two hundred leads which had not been followed. How did they manage to do that?
Scotland Yard also found Tannerman and spoke to him? Extraordinary don't you think if he was the only person spoken to during their review?
I think it is a particularly obtuse assumption to make that because there was no publicity about people being interviewed that this was not carried out discretely particularly when dealing with British Nationals who were at the heart of events.
It could be that many weren't leads at all, merely straws to be clutched at. How many have led anywhere?
-
It could be that many weren't leads at all, merely straws to be clutched at. How many have led anywhere?
Six ILORs in 4 years with no arrests yet and DCI Wall stopping meetings in Portugal ?
-
Six ILORs in 4 years with no arrests yet and DCI Wall stopping meetings in Portugal ?
It is ironic that the only person involved in the case to be arrested is amaral
-
It is ironic that the only person involved in the case to be arrested is amaral
@)(++(*
-
@)(++(*
Yet the only person who went missing is Madeleine.
-
It could be that many weren't leads at all, merely straws to be clutched at. How many have led anywhere?
Unfortunately I appear to have been dropped from Scotland Yard's list of contacts or I might be able to give you an answer.
However common sense dictates that an investigative opportunity ignored when the trail was hot is all the more difficult to pursue many years later.
For example, the initial investigation became immersed in a particular area of phone traffic ... to the exclusion it seems of traffic which was of interest to Scotland Yard and probably the Policia Judicairia.
How much more efficient it might have been if that had been checked out at the time.
Considering the witness statements concerning activity around the apartment from which a child subsequently disappeared ... how much better it would have been for them to be tracked and perhaps traced at the time.
Burglaries ... home invasions and assaulted children ... all better checked at the time rather than years down the line.
You are correct of course, the ineffectiveness of the initial investigation has been laid bare by the number of omissions the Scotland Yard review uncovered, and illustrates the road to nowhere followed by the initial investigation because the evidence was not thoroughly investigated as it should have been at the time.
I would say that of course the SY and PJ investigations have had to follow what should have been followed many years ago ... one piece of evidence investigated has probably led to another and so on.
Late in the day ... but thank God that at long last something is being done to help Madeleine McCann.
-
Unfortunately I appear to have been dropped from Scotland Yard's list of contacts or I might be able to give you an answer.
However common sense dictates that an investigative opportunity ignored when the trail was hot is all the more difficult to pursue many years later.
For example, the initial investigation became immersed in a particular area of phone traffic ... to the exclusion it seems of traffic which was of interest to Scotland Yard and probably the Policia Judicairia.
How much more efficient it might have been if that had been checked out at the time.
Considering the witness statements concerning activity around the apartment from which a child subsequently disappeared ... how much better it would have been for them to be tracked and perhaps traced at the time.
Burglaries ... home invasions and assaulted children ... all better checked at the time rather than years down the line.
You are correct of course, the ineffectiveness of the initial investigation has been laid bare by the number of omissions the Scotland Yard review uncovered, and illustrates the road to nowhere followed by the initial investigation because the evidence was not thoroughly investigated as it should have been at the time.
I would say that of course the SY and PJ investigations have had to follow what should have been followed many years ago ... one piece of evidence investigated has probably led to another and so on.
Late in the day ... but thank God that at long last something is being done to help Madeleine McCann.
You think any of this has helped her ?
-
You think any of this has helped her ?
What do you suggest? The initial investigation was botched ... so when the opportunity is fought for and is given ... just give up on Madeleine McCann for a second time?
Official recognition that she was in fact abducted goes a long way to addressing the problem.
If it isn't helping her ... unlike botching and abandoning the initial search for her did, it is doing no harm ... and in my opinion has every chance of helping her.
-
What do you suggest? The initial investigation was botched ... so when the opportunity is fought for and is given ... just give up on Madeleine McCann for a second time?
Official recognition that she was in fact abducted goes a long way to addressing the problem.
If it isn't helping her ... unlike botching and abandoning the initial search for her did, it is doing no harm ... and in my opinion has every chance of helping her.
She was searched for extensively for some time and by many people and no trace of her was found.
FACT.
-
What do you suggest? The initial investigation was botched ... so when the opportunity is fought for and is given ... just give up on Madeleine McCann for a second time?
Official recognition that she was in fact abducted goes a long way to addressing the problem.
If it isn't helping her ... unlike botching and abandoning the initial search for her did, it is doing no harm ... and in my opinion has every chance of helping her.
There IS no official recognition that she WAS abducted...how can there be recognition without facts? Explain
All that was ever said was there was an opportunity and that SY were following this particular line of inquiry at the time..FACT
-
Only because ferryman made some jibe about "fascist" and "guilty until proved innocent" to another poster.
I merely pointed out that under English health and safety legislation if there is a maiming or a death guilty until proved innocent is pretty much the case, cite or no cite. Study it yourself or talk to someone who has been the defendant then you will wake up. I don't think England is particularly fascist despite that do you?
I'm fully awake thank you and would prefer it if you didn't continually patronize me, many thanks. Bringing up Health and safety law is completely irrelevant to the fact that the McCanns are innocent.
-
She was searched for extensively for some time and by many people and no trace of her was found.
FACT.
Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed 3rd May 2007.
Her case was archived 21 Jul 2008 ... little over a wasted year later.
A year in which Madeleine seemed to take second place to the concentration on ensuring initially without let-up that her parents were accused and condemned.
This was fabricated on denial that she was abducted. Fresh investigations by Scotland Yard and the Policia Judicairia have led to the evidence for investing her abduction leading to arguidos being constituted. That tells me something even if you prefer to disregard it.
-
There IS no official recognition that she WAS abducted...how can there be recognition without facts? Explain
All that was ever said was there was an opportunity and that SY were following this particular line of inquiry at the time..FACT
Yeeeees ... and Scotland Yard and the Policia Judicairia are following "this particular line of inquiry" because ... ... ?
-
Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed 3rd May 2007.
Her case was archived 21 Jul 2008 ... little over a wasted year later.
A year in which Madeleine seemed to take second place to the concentration on ensuring initially without let-up that her parents were accused and condemned.
This was fabricated on denial that she was abducted. Fresh investigations by Scotland Yard and the Policia Judicairia have led to the evidence for investing her abduction leading to arguidos being constituted. That tells me something even if you prefer to disregard it.
I think it would be harder to disregard if, after all this time, any one of those arguidos had been charged.
-
Yeeeees ... and Scotland Yard and the Policia Judicairia are following "this particular line of inquiry" because ... ... ?
It's called a "line of enquiry" not "an official recognition of some fact"
-
I think it would be harder to disregard if, after all this time, any one of those arguidos had been charged.
It's kind of ironic that you've believe the people who were once upon a time arguidos but who haven't been arguidos for 7 years are the ones most likely to be charged - why is that?
-
Unfortunately I appear to have been dropped from Scotland Yard's list of contacts or I might be able to give you an answer.
However common sense dictates that an investigative opportunity ignored when the trail was hot is all the more difficult to pursue many years later.
For example, the initial investigation became immersed in a particular area of phone traffic ... to the exclusion it seems of traffic which was of interest to Scotland Yard and probably the Policia Judicairia.
How much more efficient it might have been if that had been checked out at the time.
Considering the witness statements concerning activity around the apartment from which a child subsequently disappeared ... how much better it would have been for them to be tracked and perhaps traced at the time.
Burglaries ... home invasions and assaulted children ... all better checked at the time rather than years down the line.
You are correct of course, the ineffectiveness of the initial investigation has been laid bare by the number of omissions the Scotland Yard review uncovered, and illustrates the road to nowhere followed by the initial investigation because the evidence was not thoroughly investigated as it should have been at the time.
I would say that of course the SY and PJ investigations have had to follow what should have been followed many years ago ... one piece of evidence investigated has probably led to another and so on.
Late in the day ... but thank God that at long last something is being done to help Madeleine McCann.
The most serious leads were followed up early in the investigation. IMO SY are now following up the weak/less likely leads.
-
Why does it concern you ?
Who said I was concerned? I was simply pointing out the irony that you seem to think the current arguidos are unlikely to be charged after all this time, but that individuals who aren't arguidos and who haven't been arguidos for an even longer period of time are the ones the Met actually have their sights on. If you can rationalise why you believe this to be the case I would be grateful, however I can fully appreciate it's a hard one to answer.
-
The most serious leads were followed up early in the investigation. IMO SY are now following up the weak/less likely leads.
The leads taken most seriously, mainly on the back of highly dubious canine alerts ... (in respect of the McCanns) and sincere attempt to help (misconstrued as something sinister) in respect of Robert Murat.
-
Who said I was concerned? I was simply pointing out the irony that you seem to think the current arguidos are unlikely to be charged after all this time, but that individuals who aren't arguidos and who haven't been arguidos for an even longer period of time are the ones the Met actually have their sights on. If you can rationalise why you believe this to be the case I would be grateful, however I can fully appreciate it's a hard one to answer.
Shall we just wait and see how it all pans out Alfie ?
-
Shall we just wait and see how it all pans out Alfie ?
The thing is people who are "only asking questions" are not interested in waiting and seeing or reserving judgment or giving the benefit of the doubt are they? They prefer to speculate that the Met are breathing down the McCanns' necks and that it's only a matter of a few million more tick-tocks before they're anti-heroes are in the clink. If you were seriously content to just wait and see you'd take a step back from forums like this and keep your counsel until it's all panned out.
-
The thing is people who are "only asking questions" are not interested in waiting and seeing or reserving judgment or giving the benefit of the doubt are they? They prefer to speculate that the Met are breathing down the McCanns' necks and that it's only a matter of a few million more tick-tocks before they're anti-heroes are in the clink. If you were seriously content to just wait and see you'd take a step back from forums like this and keep your counsel until it's all panned out.
As can the supporters.
-
As can the supporters.
for some reason supporters want to censor the internet and people it will never happen
-
The thing is people who are "only asking questions" are not interested in waiting and seeing or reserving judgment or giving the benefit of the doubt are they? They prefer to speculate that the Met are breathing down the McCanns' necks and that it's only a matter of a few million more tick-tocks before they're anti-heroes are in the clink. If you were seriously content to just wait and see you'd take a step back from forums like this and keep your counsel until it's all panned out.
Tell me, why are you here Alfie ? If the McCanns have been exonorated by SY, why the need to defend them ? Surely you should be content to just kick back and let events take their course?
-
The most serious leads were followed up early in the investigation. IMO SY are now following up the weak/less likely leads.
In my opinion Scotland Yard and the Policia Judicairia are following evidence which was available at the time. I think then it was probably very strong and competently used could have solved the crime all those years ago.
There are witnesses whose attention was attracted by the behaviour of men in the vicinity of the apartment in the run up to Madeleine's disappearance.
There were witness reports of a child resembling Madeleine in distressing circumstances in the days after she was taken ... one driver had a gun waved in his face when he tried to intervene ... which don't seem to have been checked out.
The most serious indictment of the initial investigation was the total neglect of very important phone information which could have taken the case forward instead of to the dead end of being archived.
**Snip
Data from thousands of individual mobile phones was available to Portugese authorities at the time but has only been analysed in detail now; including phone numbers and records of who they dialled. Text message content can no longer be retrieved however owing to the length of time which has now elapsed.
Det chief insp Andy Redwood, who is leading the new inquiry, said the telephone data could be the key to solving the crime. He added: A lot of the focus of that is not necessarily to try to find the suspect, its trying to find witnesses."
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/10/04/archived-mobile-phone-data-proving-invaluable-madeleine-mccann-case
-
In my opinion Scotland Yard and the Policia Judicairia are following evidence which was available at the time. I think then it was probably very strong and competently used could have solved the crime all those years ago.
There are witnesses whose attention was attracted by the behaviour of men in the vicinity of the apartment in the run up to Madeleine's disappearance.
There were witness reports of a child resembling Madeleine in distressing circumstances in the days after she was taken ... one driver had a gun waved in his face when he tried to intervene ... which don't seem to have been checked out.
The most serious indictment of the initial investigation was the total neglect of very important phone information which could have taken the case forward instead of to the dead end of being archived.
**Snip
Data from thousands of individual mobile phones was available to Portugese authorities at the time but has only been analysed in detail now; including phone numbers and records of who they dialled. Text message content can no longer be retrieved however owing to the length of time which has now elapsed.
Det chief insp Andy Redwood, who is leading the new inquiry, said the telephone data could be the key to solving the crime. He added: A lot of the focus of that is not necessarily to try to find the suspect, its trying to find witnesses."
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/10/04/archived-mobile-phone-data-proving-invaluable-madeleine-mccann-case
Tell me Brietta did any of the events detailed above actually come from the official files or are you simply relying on tabloid tales ?
-
The thing is people who are "only asking questions" are not interested in waiting and seeing or reserving judgment or giving the benefit of the doubt are they? They prefer to speculate that the Met are breathing down the McCanns' necks and that it's only a matter of a few million more tick-tocks before they're anti-heroes are in the clink. If you were seriously content to just wait and see you'd take a step back from forums like this and keep your counsel until it's all panned out.
Why do you persist in conflating people who do ask questions,as well as pour scorn on day in day out as if it's some kind of crime, with people who say they want to see these people in jail, it's extremely disingenuous of you at best!! If yu have problems with twitters and face bookers take it up with them and not here.....not sure what to call that....IE not fighting your battles where they are actually taking place...hmmmm
Ps as to your comment about not giving the benefit of the doubt, don't speak for others, thanks ever so much as you have no right to do so whatsoever
-
Why do you persist in conflating people who do ask questions,as well as pour scorn on day in day out as if it's some kind of crime, with people who say they want to see these people in jail, it's extremely disingenuous of you at best!! If yu have problems with twitters and face bookers take it up with them and not here.....not sure what to call that....IE not fighting your battles where they are actually taking place...hmmmm
Ps as to your comment about not giving the benefit of the doubt, don't speak for others, thanks ever so much as you have no right to do so whatsoever
8@??)( well said
-
Tell me, why are you here Alfie ? If the McCanns have been exonorated by SY, why the need to defend them ? Surely you should be content to just kick back and let events take their course?
I don't like to see innocent people who have lost a child being the target of prolonged online abuse and am exercising my right to express an opinion about people who do this. Also one of my guilty pleasures is highlighting the faulty logic of online conspiracy theorists,so sue me!
-
Why do you persist in conflating people who do ask questions,as well as pour scorn on day in day out as if it's some kind of crime, with people who say they want to see these people in jail, it's extremely disingenuous of you at best!! If yu have problems with twitters and face bookers take it up with them and not here.....not sure what to call that....IE not fighting your battles where they are actually taking place...hmmmm
Ps as to your comment about not giving the benefit of the doubt, don't speak for others, thanks ever so much as you have no right to do so whatsoever
It's a Strawman, exaggerating someone's stance to facilitate your argument.
-
I don't like to see innocent people who have lost a child being the target of prolonged online abuse and am exercising my right to express an opinion about people who do this. Also one of my guilty pleasures is highlighting the faulty logic of online conspiracy theorists,so sue me!
who wouldnt be missing if they had been decent parents does trouble you alfie?
-
I don't like to see innocent people who have lost a child being the target of prolonged online abuse and am exercising my right to express an opinion about people who do this. Also one of my guilty pleasures is highlighting the faulty logic of online conspiracy theorists,so sue me!
If you didn't frequent these nasty fora, then you wouldn't see anything. Problem solved ?{)(**
-
If you didn't frequent these nasty fora, then you wouldn't see anything. Problem solved ?{)(**
exactly why does alfie read stuff that upsets him??
-
who wouldnt be missing if they had been decent parents does trouble you alfie?
The McCann's have said on numerous occasions that if they could put the clock back they would never have left the children alone.
They torture themselves daily, they say, about the decision they made.
How have you come to the conclusion that they were not 'decent' parents?
Are you saying that they didn't love their child, that they purposely put her in danger? If you read the final statement made you will see that it is stated that the McCann's were not to know that in a child friendly holiday residence, their children would be in danger, there was no 'intent' to put their children in danger.
The person who is accountable for the disappearance is the ABDUCTOR though you probably don't believe there was one.
-
The McCann's have said on numerous occasions that if they could put the clock back they would never have left the children alone.
They torture themselves daily, they say, about the decision they made.
How have you come to the conclusion that they were not 'decent' parents?
Are you saying that they didn't love their child, that they purposely put her in danger? If you read the final statement made you will see that it is stated that the McCann's were not to know that in a child friendly holiday residence, their children would be in danger, there was no 'intent' to put their children in danger.
The person who is accountable for the disappearance is the ABDUCTOR though you probably don't believe there was one.
In my opinion they were duped into a false sense of security. The children should never have been left alone in an unlocked roadside apartment.
-
It's a Strawman, exaggerating someone's stance to facilitate your argument.
Quite. Distracts the other person from the point they're making too. Often used when one's argument is weak.
-
I don't like to see innocent people who have lost a child being the target of prolonged online abuse and am exercising my right to express an opinion about people who do this. Also one of my guilty pleasures is highlighting the faulty logic of online conspiracy theorists,so sue me!
That last sentence really tickles me. Have you actually read some of the convoluted scenarios posted by supporters of the McCanns just to make an abduction appear possible ?
-
The McCann's have said on numerous occasions that if they could put the clock back they would never have left the children alone.
They torture themselves daily, they say, about the decision they made.
How have you come to the conclusion that they were not 'decent' parents?
Are you saying that they didn't love their child, that they purposely put her in danger? If you read the final statement made you will see that it is stated that the McCann's were not to know that in a child friendly holiday residence, their children would be in danger, there was no 'intent' to put their children in danger.
The person who is accountable for the disappearance is the ABDUCTOR though you probably don't believe there was one.
Danger exists all the time for small children, as most people know. In this case we have one mobile lively almost 4 year old and twins in travel cots which don't contain a determined child of that age. Add an unlocked door onto a dangerous patio with chairs to fall off and steep steps. Abduction may have been the last thing anyone would expect, but other dangers were clearly present and ignored.
-
Danger exists all the time for small children, as most people know. In this case we have one mobile lively almost 4 year old and twins in travel cots which don't contain a determined child of that age. Add an unlocked door onto a dangerous patio with chairs to fall off and steep steps. Abduction may have been the last thing anyone would expect, but other dangers were clearly present and ignored.
theres no excuse imo no matter how supporters defend it
-
In my opinion they were duped into a false sense of security. The children should never have been left alone in an unlocked roadside apartment.
The McCann's have said they regret what they did and that they would never leave their children again. it must be horrific to know if you hadn't left your children alone, your child could still be with you. It must haunt them everyday, every time they think of Madeleine it's there the fact that they left them alone.
Isn't that enough for some people? Bringing it up at every opportunity just to remind the parents of what they did?
What is the point in it? Is it going to find Madeleine?
-
theres no excuse imo no matter how supporters defend it
Excuse me? Do I defend it?
I would never have left my children alone, so please don't judge people you know nothing about.
What I am saying that the decision the McCann's made will haunt them for the rest of their lives, they have to live with the fact they left their children alone and Madeleine is now missing.
The fact remains though that they loved and cherished Madeleine and did not want anything to happen to her.
-
In my opinion they were duped into a false sense of security. The children should never have been left alone in an unlocked roadside apartment.
I think they have beaten themselves up with that knowledge every day since. How to deal with the pain and guilt? Either surrender to despair or do something positive to deal with it.
They had Madeleine's siblings to consider ... and I think that helped them to determine what their course of action would be.
They knew immediately that Madeleine had been taken from the apartment. The best they could hope for was that she could be recovered alive as quickly as possible ... that didn't happen. But she still has the inalienable right to be looked for.
Which is what the Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard are continuing to do. If they come up with the person responsible for taking her in the process, that will be a bonus, but the McCanns want their daughter back.
-
In my opinion they were duped into a false sense of security. The children should never have been left alone in an unlocked roadside apartment.
I agree. They were encouraged to believe they were in a child safe environment by MW. They knew that leaving your children asleep and going to dinner - with regular checking, was a common practice by holidaymakers. Even though they hadn't done it before themselves, other members of the group had. That would be very reassuring.
They did not invent their method of checking their children, it mirrored a service which had been offered for years - because there was a demand for it by parents. To their knowledge this had never resulted in tragedy.
Thanks to the decision made by MW to keep schtum about the attacks on UK children in their own bedrooms- (which they knew about,) and also to make no mention of recent burglaries - they were indeed lulled into a false sense of security IMO.
IMO if some advice/warning just about guarding against burglaries and nothing else - had been given at the Welcome Party - that would have been enough to make all the difference to the McCanns decision.
-
I agree. They were encouraged to believe they were in a child safe environment by MW. They knew that leaving your children asleep and going to dinner - with regular checking, was a common practice by holidaymakers. Even though they hadn't done it before themselves, other members of the group had. That would be very reassuring.
They did not invent their method of checking their children, it mirrored a service which had been offered for years - because there was a demand for it by parents. To their knowledge this had never resulted in tragedy.
Thanks to the decision made by MW to keep schtum about the attacks on UK children in their own bedrooms- (which they knew about,) and also to make no mention of recent burglaries - they were indeed lulled into a false sense of security IMO.
IMO if some advice/warning just about guarding against burglaries and nothing else - had been given at the Welcome Party - that would have been enough to make all the difference to the McCanns decision.
Did the McCanns leave their apartment unsecured ? Did that leave their children in a vulnerable position ? Was that MW's fault or did the McCanns compromise their children's safety in order to make checking less of a chore for them ?
-
Did the McCanns leave their apartment unsecured ? Did that leave their children in a vulnerable position ? Was that MW's fault or did the McCanns compromise their children's safety in order to make checking less of a chore for them ?
i dont understand how mcann supporters continue to defend what the mcanns did most normal people would never leave young children alone
-
I agree. They were encouraged to believe they were in a child safe environment by MW. They knew that leaving your children asleep and going to dinner - with regular checking, was a common practice by holidaymakers. Even though they hadn't done it before themselves, other members of the group had. That would be very reassuring.
They did not invent their method of checking their children, it mirrored a service which had been offered for years - because there was a demand for it by parents. To their knowledge this had never resulted in tragedy.
Thanks to the decision made by MW to keep schtum about the attacks on UK children in their own bedrooms- (which they knew about,) and also to make no mention of recent burglaries - they were indeed lulled into a false sense of security IMO.
IMO if some advice/warning just about guarding against burglaries and nothing else - had been given at the Welcome Party - that would have been enough to make all the difference to the McCanns decision.
I think the closeness of the apartment block also gave that false sense of security ... which makes your observation that had they been aware of the two known about intrusions there they would have fortified the place and never taken their eyes off the children for a second.
Just exactly the experience holidaymakers are looking for and holiday businesses wish to promote.
-
i dont understand how mcann supporters continue to defend what the mcanns did most normal people would never leave young children alone
What about the person\s who removed Madeleine? No criticism? Hmmm ... maybe there is no jealousy there?
-
I think the closeness of the apartment block also gave that false sense of security ... which makes your observation that had they been aware of the two known about intrusions there they would have fortified the place and never taken their eyes off the children for a second.
Just exactly the experience holidaymakers are looking for and holiday businesses wish to promote.
There are no excuses for what the mccanns did.
They were in a foreign country.
They did not know the language.
They left their children alone and in an unlocked apartment, whilst they socialized.
No need for hindsight, just common sense.
-
I think the closeness of the apartment block also gave that false sense of security ... which makes your observation that had they been aware of the two known about intrusions there they would have fortified the place and never taken their eyes off the children for a second.
Just exactly the experience holidaymakers are looking for and holiday businesses wish to promote.
Fortified the place ? No responsible parent would ever leave their children vulnerable simply to save walking a few steps more to the front door.
-
What about the person\s who removed Madeleine? No criticism? Hmmm ... maybe there is no jealousy there?
There is also the theory she walked out herself and disappeared, so your point would be irrelevant in that case.
-
Did the McCanns leave their apartment unsecured ? Did that leave their children in a vulnerable position ? Was that MW's fault or did the McCanns compromise their children's safety in order to make checking less of a chore for them ?
It was MW's decision to keep parents in the dark about UK children being targetted by a paedaphile. It was also their decision to keep parents in the dark about burglaries which had taken place.
It's not rocket science to work out why they took those decisions. A clear case of profits before people IMO.
If CCTV had been installed as a result of those decisions - I would have some 'sympathy' for them. But they did nothing.
Everything was done to make their clients feel safe and secure. Nothing was done to even hint that may not be the case - and IMO that was a deliberate policy by MW.
Why you would think checking their children was a chore is a mystery to me. There is not the slightest evidence that the McCanns were anything other than decent people who dearly loved the children whom they had waited so long for - to complete their happiness.
To infer their children were a nuisance to them is ludicrous IMO.
I do wonder at times if it is the fact that they were a happily married couple, with beautiful children and the financial means to have a nice house and lead a good life is a reason for the resentment shown towards them by some people.
-
It was MW's decision to keep parents in the dark about UK children being targetted by a paedaphile. It was also their decision to keep parents in the dark about burglaries which had taken place.
It's not rocket science to work out why they took those decisions. A clear case of profits before people IMO.
If CCTV had been installed as a result of those decisions - I would have some 'sympathy' for them. But they did nothing.
Everything was done to make their clients feel safe and secure. Nothing was done to even hint that may not be the case - and IMO that was a deliberate policy by MW.
Why you would think checking their children was a chore is a mystery to me. There is not the slightest evidence that the McCanns were anything other than decent people who dearly loved the children whom they had waited so long for - to complete their happiness.
To infer their children were a nuisance to them is ludicrous IMO.
I do wonder at times if it is the fact that they were a happily married couple, with beautiful children and the financial means to have a nice house and lead a good life is a reason for the resentment shown towards them by some people.
Typical mccann supporter illogic.
Blame everyone else.
Unfortunately, the buck stops with the mccanns.
-
There is also the theory she walked out herself and disappeared, so your point would be irrelevant in that case.
There are many theories subscribed to by many people including the unlikely 'coffin' one ... it seems the present Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard theories tend towards the stranger abduction one.
-
There are many theories subscribed to by many people including the unlikely 'coffin' one ... it seems the present Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard theories tend towards the stranger abduction one.
..and they haven't got a clue where she is or what really happened.
-
..and they haven't got a clue where she is or what really happened.
While we don't know this for sure, there is the possibility that stranger abduction will show itself to be another dead end.What would they do then?
-
It was MW's decision to keep parents in the dark about UK children being targetted by a paedaphile. It was also their decision to keep parents in the dark about burglaries which had taken place.
It's not rocket science to work out why they took those decisions. A clear case of profits before people IMO.
If CCTV had been installed as a result of those decisions - I would have some 'sympathy' for them. But they did nothing.
Everything was done to make their clients feel safe and secure. Nothing was done to even hint that may not be the case - and IMO that was a deliberate policy by MW.
Why you would think checking their children was a chore is a mystery to me. There is not the slightest evidence that the McCanns were anything other than decent people who dearly loved the children whom they had waited so long for - to complete their happiness.
To infer their children were a nuisance to them is ludicrous IMO.
I do wonder at times if it is the fact that they were a happily married couple, with beautiful children and the financial means to have a nice house and lead a good life is a reason for the resentment shown towards them by some people.
From some of the comments I have read I would be of the opinion you have hit the nail on the head with that analysis, Benice.
I can find no other explanation of the deliberate ignoring of the developments in Madeleine's case over the past few years in which the abduction theory has been determined as the route to follow by the policing authorities of two countries.
The information they have to hand to enable that conclusion is not available to the 'experts' using social media to push their opinions and not the facts.
-
..and they haven't got a clue where she is or what really happened.
As far as the Amaral investigation goes I think you may have it in one, then they were more interested in the theory as opposed to the evidence ... of which there was none to support that particular theory.
Undoubtedly following the evidence as opposed to the theory has enable the present investigators to point Madeleine McCann's case in the direction of stranger abduction.
-
As far as the Amaral investigation goes I think you may have it in one, then they were more interested in the theory as opposed to the evidence ... of which there was none to support that particular theory.
Undoubtedly following the evidence as opposed to the theory has enable the present investigators to point Madeleine McCann's case in the direction of stranger abduction.
I'm afraid to tell you, but Amaral's theory of accidental death has not been disproved.
As to abduction, SY appear to be chasing tails.................................
or should I say tales ? ?{)(** 8(0(*
-
While we don't know this for sure, there is the possibility that stranger abduction will show itself to be another dead end.What would they do then?
We can only hope they will bring Madeleine McCann's case to a successful conclusion long before they run out of options. Nobody, particularly Madeleine, has the option of progressing a little then hitting a brick wall before further relevant information becomes available years down the line to build on what has gone before.
The problem as far as time goes is that there was no foundation material to progress ... they had to go back four years and make their own ... and time is the enemy.
-
It was MW's decision to keep parents in the dark about UK children being targetted by a paedaphile. It was also their decision to keep parents in the dark about burglaries which had taken place.
It's not rocket science to work out why they took those decisions. A clear case of profits before people IMO.
If CCTV had been installed as a result of those decisions - I would have some 'sympathy' for them. But they did nothing.
Everything was done to make their clients feel safe and secure. Nothing was done to even hint that may not be the case - and IMO that was a deliberate policy by MW.
Why you would think checking their children was a chore is a mystery to me. There is not the slightest evidence that the McCanns were anything other than decent people who dearly loved the children whom they had waited so long for - to complete their happiness.
To infer their children were a nuisance to them is ludicrous IMO.
I do wonder at times if it is the fact that they were a happily married couple, with beautiful children and the financial means to have a nice house and lead a good life is a reason for the resentment shown towards them by some people.
I don't doubt that resentment and envy is the motivation for some. How do you explain the "doubters" who feel neither resent nor envy?
-
I'm afraid to tell you, but Amaral's theory of accidental death has not been disproved.
As to abduction, SY appear to be chasing tails.................................
or should I say tales ? ?{)(** 8(0(*
I think Mr Amaral is thoroughly discredited. The Policia Judicaira and Scotland Yard are using evidence available to his investigation and ignored which has led them to stranger abduction.
My money is on the competent professionally conducted investigations of Madeleine's case ... not the embarrassingly botched one.
-
The McCann's have said they regret what they did and that they would never leave their children again. it must be horrific to know if you hadn't left your children alone, your child could still be with you. It must haunt them everyday, every time they think of Madeleine it's there the fact that they left them alone.
Isn't that enough for some people? Bringing it up at every opportunity just to remind the parents of what they did?
What is the point in it? Is it going to find Madeleine?
They wouldn't have the nanny's babysitting because they were 'strangers'. In their situation on 4th May my remaining children wouldn't have left my side. It could, after all, have been those 'strangers' or someone close to them who a) took my child or b) slipped a sedative into my children's food at high tea. They learned nothing imo.
-
I think Mr Amaral is thoroughly discredited. The Policia Judicaira and Scotland Yard are using evidence available to his investigation and ignored which has led them to stranger abduction.
My money is on the competent professionally conducted investigations of Madeleine's case ... not the embarrassingly botched one.
Yet they have found nothing as I predicted.
So in a few months time and still nothing found, where does that leave abduction ?
So when has accidental death been disproved ?
-
Yet they have found nothing as I predicted.
So in a few months time and still nothing found, where does that leave abduction ?
So when has accidental death been disproved ?
You know nothing, Stephen. I look forward to Madeleine's case being resolved ... how sad is it you look with anticipation that it is not. I sincerely hope your expectations are confounded.
Instead of continually questioning rhetorically ... how about making an actual case for a change? Of course the abductor direction of both contemporary investigations has rather cut the rug from under you.
-
You know nothing, Stephen. I look forward to Madeleine's case being resolved ... how sad is it you look with anticipation that it is not. I sincerely hope your expectations are confounded.
Instead of continually questioning rhetorically ... how about making an actual case for a change? Of course the abductor direction of both contemporary investigations has rather cut the rug from under you.
I don't believe it will be solved, because they are only looking at abduction, unless of course you wish to dismiss BHH's faux pas.
No rug has been cut brietta, they clearly haven't found Madeleine or what happened to her.
-
You know nothing, Stephen. I look forward to Madeleine's case being resolved ... how sad is it you look with anticipation that it is not. I sincerely hope your expectations are confounded.
Instead of continually questioning rhetorically ... how about making an actual case for a change? Of course the abductor direction of both contemporary investigations has rather cut the rug from under you.
Can you show a statement made in the last 10 months, by either investigatory team, that they are pursuing the abduction theory to the exclusion of all else ?
I presume you have must have had sight of such in order to be so categorical in your postings ?
-
The McCann's have said they regret what they did and that they would never leave their children again. it must be horrific to know if you hadn't left your children alone, your child could still be with you. It must haunt them everyday, every time they think of Madeleine it's there the fact that they left them alone.
Isn't that enough for some people? Bringing it up at every opportunity just to remind the parents of what they did?
What is the point in it? Is it going to find Madeleine?
A very carefully worded expression of regret.
-
The McCann's have said they regret what they did and that they would never leave their children again. it must be horrific to know if you hadn't left your children alone, your child could still be with you. It must haunt them everyday, every time they think of Madeleine it's there the fact that they left them alone.
Isn't that enough for some people? Bringing it up at every opportunity just to remind the parents of what they did?
What is the point in it? Is it going to find Madeleine?
In August 2007 Kate McCann said;
Jenny: 'And how will you deal with the guilt that will probably stay with you forever of having left Madeleine alone?'
Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'
So three months later she'd come to terms 'a little bit' with her guilt. Because of
a) the situation they were in (what was that in particular then?)
b) she didn't feel she was taking a risk (she should have rung her Mum, she'd have told her)
c) People told her not to blame herself because they've done it too; hundreds of times over (good gracious).
Still, she does feel desperately sorry. For leaving her children that evening? No, only that she wasn't there at that minute when she was taken. If she'd been there it's highly likely Madeleine wouldn't have been taken.
-
In August 2007 Kate McCann said;
Jenny: 'And how will you deal with the guilt that will probably stay with you forever of having left Madeleine alone?'
Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'
So three months later she'd come to terms 'a little bit' with her guilt. Because of
a) the situation they were in (what was that in particular then?)
b) she didn't feel she was taking a risk (she should have rung her Mum, she'd have told her)
c) People told her not to blame herself because they've done it too; hundreds of times over (good gracious).
Still, she does feel desperately sorry. For leaving her children that evening? No, only that she wasn't there at that minute when she was taken. If she'd been there it's highly likely Madeleine wouldn't have been taken.
Always assuming the place wasn't targeted by one of those "superdodgies" so prevalent on The Algarve who are in and out like Flynn before anyone knows they are there regardless of who is in the building.
-
Can you show a statement made in the last 10 months, by either investigatory team, that they are pursuing the abduction theory to the exclusion of all else ?
I presume you have must have had sight of such in order to be so categorical in your postings ?
It is highly unlikely that the huge mistakes of the past have been replicated by the present investigations. I am sure that unlike the original investigation the present investigations will be open to all probabilities which are evidence based. I'm using common sense to make observations about what may be going on ... I recommend it to you.
-
It is highly unlikely that the huge mistakes of the past have been replicated by the present investigations. I am sure that unlike the original investigation the present investigations will be open to all probabilities which are evidence based. I'm using common sense to make observations about what may be going on ... I recommend it to you.
.
Is that a Hobson's choice special ?
-
It is highly unlikely that the huge mistakes of the past have been replicated by the present investigations. I am sure that unlike the original investigation the present investigations will be open to all probabilities which are evidence based. I'm using common sense to make observations about what may be going on ... I recommend it to you.
Strange how supporters base their opinions on 'common sense' rather than on evidence. No cites possible, obviously.
-
A very carefully worded expression of regret.
Which is far more than any third-party should feel remotely entitled to ask.
-
Can you show a statement made in the last 10 months, by either investigatory team, that they are pursuing the abduction theory to the exclusion of all else ?
I presume you have must have had sight of such in order to be so categorical in your postings ?
Can you show a statement that indicates any retreat from the position set out by Andy Redwood?
And has the McCanns' arguido status been re-imposed?
-
Can you show a statement that shows any advance from that position?
-
It is highly unlikely that the huge mistakes of the past have been replicated by the present investigations. I am sure that unlike the original investigation the present investigations will be open to all probabilities which are evidence based. I'm using common sense to make observations about what may be going on ... I recommend it to you.
Such narrow minded common sense is not my bag, so no matter how much you recommend it I ain't buying.
-
Can you show a statement that indicates any retreat from the position set out by Andy Redwood?
And has the McCanns' arguido status been re-imposed?
1. Is that what Redwood said or what you say he said? I suspect the two are at variance.
2. Not that we are aware of but then I never said it had. It does not however preclude other options than abduction by stranger.
-
1. Is that what Redwood said or what you say he said? I suspect the two are at variance.
2. Not that we are aware of but then I never said it had. It does not however preclude other options than abduction by stranger.
Redwood said that neither the McCanns nor their friends were persons of interest or suspects.
-
Such narrow minded common sense is not my bag, so no matter how much you recommend it I ain't buying.
We get the picture ....
-
Such narrow minded common sense is not my bag, so no matter how much you recommend it I ain't buying.
Then perhaps you should accept that my view of the world is a vastly different one from yours. Given exactly the same information to work with as you I have reached the opinion that there is a far greater chance that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger ... what yours may be is for you to determine.
The fact that the Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard have studied the evidence and are in the process of tracking whoever that person or persons may be, gives me a certain amount of hope that Madeleine may at long last be found.
So that "narrow common sense" feels quite a comfortable place to be.
-
Redwood said that neither the McCanns nor their friends were persons of interest or suspects.
The said the same about Adrian Prout.
-
The said the same about Adrian Prout.
I'm not as immersed in the Prout case as you seem to be but ... didn't a jury convict him and a judge send him to jail for murder ... despite Eddie's failure to locate his victim's remains?
-
In August 2007 Kate McCann said;
Jenny: 'And how will you deal with the guilt that will probably stay with you forever of having left Madeleine alone?'
Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'
So three months later she'd come to terms 'a little bit' with her guilt. Because of
a) the situation they were in (what was that in particular then?)
b) she didn't feel she was taking a risk (she should have rung her Mum, she'd have told her)
c) People told her not to blame herself because they've done it too; hundreds of times over (good gracious).
Still, she does feel desperately sorry. For leaving her children that evening? No, only that she wasn't there at that minute when she was taken. If she'd been there it's highly likely Madeleine wouldn't have been taken.
Said in an interview the same month - Heartbroken mum Kate McCann quietly sobs as she speaks for the first time of her guilt about leaving little daughter Madeleine alone the night she was snatched. "I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren't there," she says.
Are you saying that after three months Kate McCann was saying that she wasn't sorry for leaving Madeleine but just sorry about not being there the minute she was taken? That is wrong, the McCann's have said they regret leaving the children and that they would never leave them again, Kate said she kept asking herself why she thought it was safe to leave, that she didn't have to think about it, it felt safe, it was a quiet child friendly holiday resort.
-
Said in an interview the same month - Heartbroken mum Kate McCann quietly sobs as she speaks for the first time of her guilt about leaving little daughter Madeleine alone the night she was snatched. "I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren't there," she says.
Are you saying that after three months Kate McCann was saying that she wasn't sorry for leaving Madeleine but just sorry about not being there the minute she was taken? That is wrong, the McCann's have said they regret leaving the children and that they would never leave them again, Kate said she kept asking herself why she thought it was safe to leave, that she didn't have to think about it, it felt safe, it was a quiet child friendly holiday resort.
Heartbroken mccann should have thought about her actions with her husband when they left their children to wine and dine.
-
I'm not as immersed in the Prout case as you seem to be but ... didn't a jury convict him and a judge send him to jail for murder ... despite Eddie's failure to locate his victim's remains?
Eddie alerted in the main Prout house and Prout strangled and buried his wife in an outhouse several hundred yards away.
As is the standard procedure in English courts the (uncorroborated) dog reaction was omitted from evidence presented to the jury at Prout's trial.
However the prosecution delivered a scenario (of Mrs Prout's death) that Prout had strangled his wife in the lounge of the matrimonial home (where Eddie alerted), then buried her somewhere (at that point!) unknown.
The thrust of the prosecution case (that Prout had murdered his wife) rested on the fact that her bank accounts and other investments or savings had remained untouched from the point of her disappearance.
Mrs Prout's true resting-place only came to light after Prout (following his conviction) confessed and led police to where his wife's remains lay.
-
Why do you persist in conflating people who do ask questions,as well as pour scorn on day in day out as if it's some kind of crime, with people who say they want to see these people in jail, it's extremely disingenuous of you at best!! If yu have problems with twitters and face bookers take it up with them and not here.....not sure what to call that....IE not fighting your battles where they are actually taking place...hmmmm
Ps as to your comment about not giving the benefit of the doubt, don't speak for others, thanks ever so much as you have no right to do so whatsoever
Many (most?) of the people who are "only asking questions" are doing so presumably because they believe the McCanns had a hand in their child's disappearance and are "only asking questions" in the spirit of "Justice 4 Maddie". Why would these people not be wanting to see the McCanns locked up?? Of course they would, and please don't insult my intelligence by pretending otherwise.
Do you give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt? But I thought you were a doubter?? Or maybe you're the worst sort of McCann online commentator - the ones who don't think they hid their kid's body but enjoy putting the boot in anyway.
-
That last sentence really tickles me. Have you actually read some of the convoluted scenarios posted by supporters of the McCanns just to make an abduction appear possible ?
Yes, and none is as twisted and illogical as yours IMO.
-
It's a Strawman, exaggerating someone's stance to facilitate your argument.
I have exaggerated nothing, in fact I have drastically underplayed the extremism that accompanies much of the online activities of the "only asking questions" brigade.
-
Then perhaps you should accept that my view of the world is a vastly different one from yours. Given exactly the same information to work with as you I have reached the opinion that there is a far greater chance that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger ... what yours may be is for you to determine.
The fact that the Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard have studied the evidence and are in the process of tracking whoever that person or persons may be, gives me a certain amount of hope that Madeleine may at long last be found.
So that "narrow common sense" feels quite a comfortable place to be.
I realised that the first time I read one of your posts.
The fact you disagree with me does not necessarily make you right.
-
You are making many assumptions though. People read stuff in the papers and Internet and then come onto an online forum especially one like this to get some kind of clarification on the actual facts. And this is one of the only forums I could find other then web sleuths (which doesn't allow McCann comment anymore) and has no obvious bias. Obviously people come for other reasons too - some as you say less noble. Your cause may be slightly more noble then a doubter but at the same time unless you know what the truth is you are also propagating in some admittedly very small way the propaganda for the McCann side if you consider there may be a world in which they are guilty, which you acknowledged in this thread. The noblest gesture imo is to let events take their course and say nothing at all. Must admit I try and keep it to a minimum.
-
Heartbroken mccann should have thought about her actions with her husband when they left their children to wine and dine.
same as the needhams do you think...leaving little Ben alone so he could be abducted
-
I have exaggerated nothing, in fact I have drastically underplayed the extremism that accompanies much of the online activities of the "only asking questions" brigade.
They are not on here so it is a Strawman.
-
Redwood said that neither the McCanns nor their friends were persons of interest or suspects.
No response to the second part of my post then?
-
I'll believe it when Pfennig tells them where to find the body and it is recovered. Then I just might agree with you. Some people will confess to anything to alleviate the boredom of their existence.
-
I'll believe it when Pfennig tells them where to find the body and it is recovered. Then I just might agree with you. Some people will confess to anything to alleviate the boredom of their existence.
So, what do you think happened to the girl? Just decided to run away from home I suppose...?
-
a) how do you know they are not on here, but are simply minding their ps and qs because they have to and b) are we not allowed to reference what goes on online outside of this forum? If so, please could you add it to the rules of the forum, thanks.
As far as I am concerned the members of this forum behave themselves to the most part and as such should not be equated to those individuals who go over the top in other places. If you want to talk about other posters in other places please make it clear where these posters operate.
-
You are making many assumptions though. People read stuff in the papers and Internet and then come onto an online forum especially one like this to get some kind of clarification on the actual facts. And this is one of the only forums I could find other then web sleuths (which doesn't allow McCann comment anymore) and has no obvious bias. Obviously people come for other reasons too - some as you say less noble. Your cause may be slightly more noble then a doubter but at the same time unless you know what the truth is you are also propagating in some admittedly very small way the propaganda for the McCann side if you consider there may be a world in which they are guilty, which you acknowledged in this thread. The noblest gesture imo is to let events take their course and say nothing at all. Must admit I try and keep it to a minimum.
If I am wrong and the McCanns are guilty then I have harmed no one, done nothing to be ashamed of - if on the other hand the McCanns are found once and for all to have had no hand in their child's disappearance, then can the "only asking questions" brigade honestly hand on heart say the same? I'm talking about the ones who have been publicly casting aspersions on the McCanns integrity for the last 8 years. I guess they'll excuse their actions by reverting to the fallback position that Stephen often references ie: "it was their fault their kid got abducted anyway" and that way they will still feel justified in their actions.
-
We all know where they operate, please don't come over all innocent about the protracted online campaign against the McCanns - you know as well as I do what I'm on about. I don't believe for one minute that the McCann sceptics on this forum limit their discussions about this case to this one forum, in fact I know of several who have post elsewhere (Mirror Forum, 3 Arguidos, Haverns, Controversy etc) on a regular basis.
I don't post or look elsewhere and am only concerned with this forum. I am sure other posters post elsewhere from both sides. If you find the rules of this forum hamper your arguments then you may have to look elsewhere.
-
I don't post or look elsewhere and am only concerned with this forum. I am sure other posters post elsewhere from both sides. If you find the rules of this forum hamper your arguments then you may have to look elsewhere.
Perhaps you could tell me how I have broken the rules of this forum?
-
No response to the second part of my post then?
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/straight-from-the-mouth-of-dci-andy-redwood/
-
Okay. That's enough. Back to the topic.
-
According to DCI Redwood a forensic examination of the timeline and the finding of 'crecheman' allowed the clock to move forward. He suggested that the man seen by the Smith family could have been carrying Madeleine. If so, he struck after Matthew Oldfield's check and before Kate McCann's check. What sort of abduction do people think it was?
A gang who watched and planned the abduction.
A person alone who watched and planned the abduction.
A opportunist abductor who did no planning.
A burglary gone wrong.
-
According to DCI Redwood a forensic examination of the timeline and the finding of 'crecheman' allowed the clock to move forward. He suggested that the man seen by the Smith family could have been carrying Madeleine. If so, he struck after Matthew Oldfield's check and before Kate McCann's check. What sort of abduction do people think it was?
A gang who watched and planned the abduction.
A person alone who watched and planned the abduction.
A opportunist abductor who did no planning.
A burglary gone wrong.
could be any of the above
-
could be any of the above
Could it? Let's think. Can we answer any of these questions?
Firstly a planned abduction by a group. Why look in this resort? Why did they want a three year old girl? For themselves or for someone else? Why this child and not one of the ten pretty little three year old girls described by Bridget O'Donald?
Secondly a planned abduction by one person. Again, why here and why this child?
An opportunist? Unlikely because there was no opportunity, the opportunity had to be created.
A burglary gone wrong. Did someone walking past just decide to try the shutters, then the window? Did they see someone exit the patio doors and just pop in on a whim? Most burglars run if a child cries.
-
Could it? Let's think. Can we answer any of these questions?
Firstly a planned abduction by a group. Why look in this resort? Why did they want a three year old girl? For themselves or for someone else? Why this child and not one of the ten pretty little three year old girls described by Bridget O'Donald?
Secondly a planned abduction by one person. Again, why here and why this child?
An opportunist? Unlikely because there was no opportunity, the opportunity had to be created.
A burglary gone wrong. Did someone walking past just decide to try the shutters, then the window? Did they see someone exit the patio doors and just pop in on a whim? Most burglars run if a child cries.
Never heard of gangs planning to abduct toddlers....
-
Could it? Let's think. Can we answer any of these questions?
Firstly a planned abduction by a group. Why look in this resort? Why did they want a three year old girl? For themselves or for someone else? Why this child and not one of the ten pretty little three year old girls described by Bridget O'Donald?
Secondly a planned abduction by one person. Again, why here and why this child?
An opportunist? Unlikely because there was no opportunity, the opportunity had to be created.
A burglary gone wrong. Did someone walking past just decide to try the shutters, then the window? Did they see someone exit the patio doors and just pop in on a whim? Most burglars run if a child cries.
could be any of the above...I don't see the point in speculating
-
Never heard of gangs planning to abduct toddlers....
Me neither but it has been suggested that there are such people stealing children 'to order' as it were.
I'm asking the questions because I was wondering who the abductor that every talks about could be. People are convinced there was one but who was he and why did he go to this resort and why did he take this child?
If the abduction was planned, why Madeleine? There was a slightly younger but just as cute child in 5H and no-one checked on that child, watchers would have noticed. None of the checkers went upstairs, so no chance of being disturbed. Unless they were Ocean Club employees or holiday makers they wouldn't know about the baby alarm, so 5H would have been an easier target if the group were watched.
I would like to hear a supporter explain just why this particular child was targeted.
-
According to DCI Redwood a forensic examination of the timeline and the finding of 'crecheman' allowed the clock to move forward. He suggested that the man seen by the Smith family could have been carrying Madeleine. If so, he struck after Matthew Oldfield's check and before Kate McCann's check. What sort of abduction do people think it was?
A gang who watched and planned the abduction.
A person alone who watched and planned the abduction.
A opportunist abductor who did no planning.
A burglary gone wrong.
perhaps you could also consider those questions in the context of the case in the opening post of this thread, or are you still of te view that it's more likely she cut her way out of her bedroom in the middle of the night?
-
could be any of the above...I don't see the point in speculating
One hour into the search by holiday makers of the hotel and surrounding areas, about 23.00 hrs, Mr McKenzie approached the McCann's apartment from the bushes at the rear of the apartment.
He was searching the gardens. He did not know it was the McCann's apartment.
He saw Mr Gerry McCann standing alone in the doorway at the rear of the apartment talking on his mobile telephone.
Mr McCann was looking our over the swimming pool and did not see Mr McKenzie.
Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call that he feared 'she (Madeleine McCann) had been taken by paedophiles'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
-
Me neither but it has been suggested that there are such people stealing children 'to order' as it were.
I'm asking the questions because I was wondering who the abductor that every talks about could be. People are convinced there was one but who was he and why did he go to this resort and why did he take this child?
If the abduction was planned, why Madeleine? There was a slightly younger but just as cute child in 5H and no-one checked on that child, watchers would have noticed. None of the checkers went upstairs, so no chance of being disturbed. Unless they were Ocean Club employees or holiday makers they wouldn't know about the baby alarm, so 5H would have been an easier target if the group were watched.
I would like to hear a supporter explain just why this particular child was targeted.
1. Why assume this particular child was targeted? There were 8 children in the group, 7 of them girls, all under age 4. Perhaps a child under (insert age here) was the target?
2. The receptionist booking the holiday stated that there was a request to be on the ground floor, due to young children. Holiday organiser David Payne is the parent who ends up with children not on the ground floor.
3. After discussion about 30 min hearing checks not being done at Luz, David Payne decides on a baby monitor. 3 other sets of parents do not.
4. None of the checkers decides to do something painfully obvious. Like leave one parent behind per night, doing all the patrols. Or splitting the duties, with each parent checking all 3 ground floor apartments every 10 minutes.
I am far from convinced that Madeleine was THE target, as opposed to someone who wound up with the short straw.
-
Me neither but it has been suggested that there are such people stealing children 'to order' as it were.
I'm asking the questions because I was wondering who the abductor that every talks about could be. People are convinced there was one but who was he and why did he go to this resort and why did he take this child?
If the abduction was planned, why Madeleine? There was a slightly younger but just as cute child in 5H and no-one checked on that child, watchers would have noticed. None of the checkers went upstairs, so no chance of being disturbed. Unless they were Ocean Club employees or holiday makers they wouldn't know about the baby alarm, so 5H would have been an easier target if the group were watched.
I would like to hear a supporter explain just why this particular child was targeted.
They're all just "theories" in explanation to an alleged abduction NOTHNG more
-
Me neither but it has been suggested that there are such people stealing children 'to order' as it were.
I'm asking the questions because I was wondering who the abductor that every talks about could be. People are convinced there was one but who was he and why did he go to this resort and why did he take this child?
If the abduction was planned, why Madeleine? There was a slightly younger but just as cute child in 5H and no-one checked on that child, watchers would have noticed. None of the checkers went upstairs, so no chance of being disturbed. Unless they were Ocean Club employees or holiday makers they wouldn't know about the baby alarm, so 5H would have been an easier target if the group were watched.
I would like to hear a supporter explain just why this particular child was targeted.
Unless a supporter here also happens to be the abductor (unlikely!) then how in God's name should any of us know why Madeleine was targeted? Why was that child in Wales snatched from her bath? I expect there were "cuter" ones, more snatchable ones all over town! It's an idiotic question to put to us, nobody except the abductor can answer it.
-
Unless a supporter here also happens to be the abductor (unlikely!) then how in God's name should any of us know why Madeleine was targeted? Why was that child in Wales snatched from her bath? I expect there were "cuter" ones, more snatchable ones all over town! It's an idiotic question to put to us, nobody except the abductor can answer it.
People are sure there was an abduction, and have discussed endlessly whether the abductor watched, where from, why he opened the shutters. I haven't seen any discussion about why, and whether he was local, a holiday maker or someone who came into PdL specially.
Abductors of little girls Madeleine's age are rare. She's younger than the children a sexual predator usually chooses and too old to be taken to be someone's child. Given the frequency of the checks and the fact that three children were in the room someone was prepared to take a huge risk to get this child. There were two others in the group not much different in age and cuteness. One of those wasn't being checked. Neither was their apartment on the route of the checkers, it was out of the way upstairs, giving someone more time and less chance of being spotted. Either the abductor wanted Madeleine to the exclusion of all others or he was quite dim imo.
-
Could it? Let's think. Can we answer any of these questions?
Firstly a planned abduction by a group. Why look in this resort? Why did they want a three year old girl? For themselves or for someone else? Why this child and not one of the ten pretty little three year old girls described by Bridget O'Donald?
Secondly a planned abduction by one person. Again, why here and why this child?
An opportunist? Unlikely because there was no opportunity, the opportunity had to be created.
A burglary gone wrong. Did someone walking past just decide to try the shutters, then the window? Did they see someone exit the patio doors and just pop in on a whim? Most burglars run if a child cries.
If it was a premeditated planned abduction, then the Ocean club in PdL is an ideal location IMO.
Holiday resorts are constantly full of strange faces as holidaymakers come and go.
It is on the coastline, so escape could be made by boat or by road.
There was no CCTV at the complex.
It was advertised as a child-friendly place.
IIRC The general public were allowed to go in and out.
5A was ideally situated and described as a burglars dream IIRC by the UK police.
There is no police station in PdL - the nearest is in Lagos
IMO the fact that Madeleine was abducted on the night before the last night of the holiday is very pertinent - as the perpetrator would be aware that routines can change on the last night - as people prepare to depart the following day.
The PT laws may have been a factor. In Portugal if a child disappears it appears there is no immediate media public campaign to draw attention to that fact - as there would be in other countries. IMO that lack of publicity would be seen as a massive advantage to would-be abductor(s).
According to Mrs Murat - locals may be scared to approach the police for fear of being wrongly implicated themselves. IMO. This reluctance is another plus for would be abductors.
All in all therefore it seems to me that anyone planning to abduct a child would have concluded that PdL, the child friendly Ocean club and apartment 5A fitted the bill perfectly - especially if more than one abductor was involved.
-
If it was a premeditated planned abduction, then the Ocean club in PdL is an ideal location IMO.
Holiday resorts are constantly full of strange faces as holidaymakers come and go.
It is on the coastline, so escape could be made by boat or by road.
There was no CCTV at the complex.
It was advertised as a child-friendly place.
IIRC The general public were allowed to go in and out.
5A was ideally situated and described as a burglars dream IIRC by the UK police.
There is no police station in PdL - the nearest is in Lagos
IMO the fact that Madeleine was abducted on the night before the last night of the holiday is very pertinent - as the perpetrator would be aware that routines can change on the last night - as people prepare to depart the following day.
The PT laws may have been a factor. In Portugal if a child disappears it appears there is no immediate media public campaign to draw attention to that fact - as there would be in other countries. IMO that lack of publicity would be seen as a massive advantage to would-be abductor(s).
According to Mrs Murat - locals may be scared to approach the police for fear of being wrongly implicated themselves. IMO. This reluctance is another plus for would be abductors.
All in all therefore it seems to me that anyone planning to abduct a child would have concluded that PdL, the child friendly Ocean club and apartment 5A fitted the bill perfectly - especially if more than one abductor was involved.
Good Post.
-
People are sure there was an abduction, and have discussed endlessly whether the abductor watched, where from, why he opened the shutters. I haven't seen any discussion about why, and whether he was local, a holiday maker or someone who came into PdL specially.
Abductors of little girls Madeleine's age are rare. She's younger than the children a sexual predator usually chooses and too old to be taken to be someone's child. Given the frequency of the checks and the fact that three children were in the room someone was prepared to take a huge risk to get this child. There were two others in the group not much different in age and cuteness. One of those wasn't being checked. Neither was their apartment on the route of the checkers, it was out of the way upstairs, giving someone more time and less chance of being spotted. Either the abductor wanted Madeleine to the exclusion of all others or he was quite dim imo.
Why would an upstairs location be better for gaining access to and for carrying away a child from? &%+((£
-
People are sure there was an abduction, and have discussed endlessly whether the abductor watched, where from, why he opened the shutters. I haven't seen any discussion about why, and whether he was local, a holiday maker or someone who came into PdL specially.
Abductors of little girls Madeleine's age are rare. She's younger than the children a sexual predator usually chooses and too old to be taken to be someone's child. Given the frequency of the checks and the fact that three children were in the room someone was prepared to take a huge risk to get this child. There were two others in the group not much different in age and cuteness. One of those wasn't being checked. Neither was their apartment on the route of the checkers, it was out of the way upstairs, giving someone more time and less chance of being spotted. Either the abductor wanted Madeleine to the exclusion of all others or he was quite dim imo.
Can we have some research to back up the statement above please? I wasn't aware that 4 year olds were not such attractive targets for paedos, nor that there was any hard and fast rule about the age suitability of snatched children for other purposes.
-
Can we have some research to back up the statement above please? I wasn't aware that 4 year olds were not such attractive targets for paedos, nor that there was any hard and fast rule about the age suitability of snatched children for other purposes.
So alfred, in terms of simplicity, why wouldn't an abductor take one of Madeleine's younger siblings ?
-
So alfred, in terms of simplicity, why wouldn't an abductor take one of Madeleine's younger siblings ?
How should I know? Is there some sort of rule of child abduction that says the younger the better?
-
So alfred, in terms of simplicity, why wouldn't an abductor take one of Madeleine's younger siblings ?
Separating Twins would not have been a good idea. And then there would have been the problem of nappies while on the move.
-
If it was a premeditated planned abduction, then the Ocean club in PdL is an ideal location IMO.
Holiday resorts are constantly full of strange faces as holidaymakers come and go.
It is on the coastline, so escape could be made by boat or by road.
There was no CCTV at the complex.
It was advertised as a child-friendly place.
IIRC The general public were allowed to go in and out.
5A was ideally situated and described as a burglars dream IIRC by the UK police.
There is no police station in PdL - the nearest is in Lagos
IMO the fact that Madeleine was abducted on the night before the last night of the holiday is very pertinent - as the perpetrator would be aware that routines can change on the last night - as people prepare to depart the following day.
The PT laws may have been a factor. In Portugal if a child disappears it appears there is no immediate media public campaign to draw attention to that fact - as there would be in other countries. IMO that lack of publicity would be seen as a massive advantage to would-be abductor(s).
According to Mrs Murat - locals may be scared to approach the police for fear of being wrongly implicated themselves. IMO. This reluctance is another plus for would be abductors.
All in all therefore it seems to me that anyone planning to abduct a child would have concluded that PdL, the child friendly Ocean club and apartment 5A fitted the bill perfectly - especially if more than one abductor was involved.
They did go to a lot of trouble. didn't they? I wonder if they investigated all of Europe or just Portugal or just the Algarve before deciding that the Ocean Club was exactly the place to find three year old children. They must then have gone to investigate on the ground, as it were.
Checks revealed little or no CCTV, no police station, and a reluctance by locals to interact with the police. Of course they also revealed that three year old girls didn't wander around on their own like older children. They were either with their parents or in childcare during the day. In the evenings they were either with their parents when dining, in their apartments with a babysitter or at the night creche with childcare workers.
Did these checks take place during the week beginning 28th April or earlier, I wonder? The previous occupant of G5A had a visitor, a charity collector. Was he 'casing the joint'? He only got as far as the roadside gate, so he didn't see much. Would he have gone up the steps to the patio if the occupant wan't in the garden/patio area? Perhaps, but why? All he would have found was a balcony and two locked patio doors.
If the abductor (s) were there all week when the McCanns were there why did they choose G5A? It may have been a burglar's dream, but not during the evening. From 8.30pm to midnight there was a constant stream of people passing back and forth checking on children in Block 5. On Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday some people stayed in the apartments. On Thursday someone was in the apartments from 9.30pm onwards. In the first floor apartment was a permanent resident who could have heard something and called the authorities at any moment.
Anyone still proceeding in the face of such problems must have been determined to abduct one child in particular in my opinion. There must have been easier targets.
-
They did go to a lot of trouble. didn't they? I wonder if they investigated all of Europe or just Portugal or just the Algarve before deciding that the Ocean Club was exactly the place to find three year old children. They must then have gone to investigate on the ground, as it were.
Checks revealed little or no CCTV, no police station, and a reluctance by locals to interact with the police. Of course they also revealed that three year old girls didn't wander around on their own like older children. They were either with their parents or in childcare during the day. In the evenings they were either with their parents when dining, in their apartments with a babysitter or at the night creche with childcare workers.
Did these checks take place during the week beginning 28th April or earlier, I wonder? The previous occupant of G5A had a visitor, a charity collector. Was he 'casing the joint'? He only got as far as the roadside gate, so he didn't see much. Would he have gone up the steps to the patio if the occupant wan't in the garden/patio area? Perhaps, but why? All he would have found was a balcony and two locked patio doors.
If the abductor (s) were there all week when the McCanns were there why did they choose G5A? It may have been a burglar's dream, but not during the evening. From 8.30pm to midnight there was a constant stream of people passing back and forth checking on children in Block 5. On Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday some people stayed in the apartments. On Thursday someone was in the apartments from 9.30pm onwards. In the first floor apartment was a permanent resident who could have heard something and called the authorities at any moment.
Anyone still proceeding in the face of such problems must have been determined to abduct one child in particular in my opinion. There must have been easier targets.
Nice facetious post there. Ask yourself - have other children been abducted from or molested and / or murdered in their own homes (or places considered home) by strangers before, in unprepossessing random locations and at extremely high risk of discovery by the perpetrator? If the answer is yes (which it surely must be), then is it not also possible in this case? If not, please state why not.
-
More possible reasons why PdL may have been chosen.
Quote from Amarals book.
All of the video recordings from the tourist complex - hotels, banks, pharmacies, supermarkets and service stations -, including those from the CCTV cameras of two motorways - one leading to Lagos and one linking Lagos and Spain -, will be viewed. The Spanish customs service has been asked to increase vigilance at the two ports maintaining links with Morocco,Tarifa and Algeciras. The Algarvian coast, very popular with sailing enthusiasts, is bordered by a large number of marinas. Pleasure boats from every province berth here. Situated 120 nautical miles from the African continent, between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, it is the most accessible coast for entering the continent of Europe. It attracts many yachtsmen, who appreciate the beauty of its beaches and its inlets, but it also attracts all sorts of traffickers.
Unquote
(Must go out now)
-
They did go to a lot of trouble. didn't they? I wonder if they investigated all of Europe or just Portugal or just the Algarve before deciding that the Ocean Club was exactly the place to find three year old children. They must then have gone to investigate on the ground, as it were.
Checks revealed little or no CCTV, no police station, and a reluctance by locals to interact with the police. Of course they also revealed that three year old girls didn't wander around on their own like older children. They were either with their parents or in childcare during the day. In the evenings they were either with their parents when dining, in their apartments with a babysitter or at the night creche with childcare workers.
Did these checks take place during the week beginning 28th April or earlier, I wonder? The previous occupant of G5A had a visitor, a charity collector. Was he 'casing the joint'? He only got as far as the roadside gate, so he didn't see much. Would he have gone up the steps to the patio if the occupant wan't in the garden/patio area? Perhaps, but why? All he would have found was a balcony and two locked patio doors.
If the abductor (s) were there all week when the McCanns were there why did they choose G5A? It may have been a burglar's dream, but not during the evening. From 8.30pm to midnight there was a constant stream of people passing back and forth checking on children in Block 5. On Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday some people stayed in the apartments. On Thursday someone was in the apartments from 9.30pm onwards. In the first floor apartment was a permanent resident who could have heard something and called the authorities at any moment.
Anyone still proceeding in the face of such problems must have been determined to abduct one child in particular in my opinion. There must have been easier targets.
Try reversing this to ask who knew most of the above facts in advance, and could manufacture an optimal kidnap scenario. Not with absolute certainty but with a high degree of probability.
-
Try reversing this to ask who knew most of the above facts in advance, and could manufacture an optimal kidnap scenario. Not with absolute certainty but with a high degree of probability.
One presumes that the cops interviewed employees of the resort and the travel companies?
One question remains. If it was sorted out like that why all the ne'er do wells casing the joint, sending each other signals with fag lighters and so on and so forth? As the apartment with access to the main drags rather than the resort alleyways would have been the best target it would need a bit of engineering to have an appropriate child in that apartment. Otherwise it is totally random
OK let's do a sense check by identifying all necessary activities and see how it looks.
Anyone to start?
-
One presumes that the cops interviewed employees of the resort and the travel companies?
One question remains. If it was sorted out like that why all the ne'er do wells casing the joint, sending each other signals with fag lighters and so on and so forth? As the apartment with access to the main drags rather than the resort alleyways would have been the best target it would need a bit of engineering to have an appropriate child in that apartment. Otherwise it is totally random
OK let's do a sense check by identifying all necessary activities and see how it looks.
Anyone to start?
If I understood what you were asking for I'd happily oblige.
-
One presumes that the cops interviewed employees of the resort and the travel companies?
One question remains. If it was sorted out like that why all the ne'er do wells casing the joint, sending each other signals with fag lighters and so on and so forth? As the apartment with access to the main drags rather than the resort alleyways would have been the best target it would need a bit of engineering to have an appropriate child in that apartment. Otherwise it is totally random
OK let's do a sense check by identifying all necessary activities and see how it looks.
Anyone to start?
Check the PJ Files in the section where there are handwritten notes on the prior record of about 11 employees. One person has several notes. Then check that person's statement.
Just to be clear, I have no proof that this person was involved, merely that the person was ideally placed to optimise the odds in a planned abduction scenario.
And if the actual abduction was to be carried out by others, then casing the scene makes sense.
It does not necessarily follow that those doing the casing or the abduction were the people discussed in Crimewatch 2013. The time line allows for casing weeks before Madeleine arrived, if Madeleine was not the chosen one, but merely a girl who fitted a general spec.
-
Check the PJ Files in the section where there are handwritten notes on the prior record of about 11 employees. One person has several notes. Then check that person's statement.
Just to be clear, I have no proof that this person was involved, merely that the person was ideally placed to optimise the odds in a planned abduction scenario.
And if the actual abduction was to be carried out by others, then casing the scene makes sense.
It does not necessarily follow that those doing the casing or the abduction were the people discussed in Crimewatch 2013. The time line allows for casing weeks before Madeleine arrived, if Madeleine was not the chosen one, but merely a girl who fitted a general spec.
Interesting, I haven't seen any handwritten notes. I still think that a planned abduction of G5A would have been seen to be too risky, if the truth was told about the number of people visiting the apartments on 3rd May. Any watcher would have concluded that the chances of bumping into a checker were so high that the project would have been abandoned. If it was the case that the child was placed in G5A purposely, how could it have been known in advance that the children were going to be left alone in the apartment? Are we to assume that the apartment was chosen in advance, then suitable children were placed in there until eventually parents arrived who left their children alone? Hmmm.
-
So alfred, in terms of simplicity, why wouldn't an abductor take one of Madeleine's younger siblings ?
It would be much easier to take an older child who could be persuaded to go with the person e.g 'mummy sent me to fetch you' etc. a child of two would not understand and scream and protest.
-
Interesting, I haven't seen any handwritten notes. I still think that a planned abduction of G5A would have been seen to be too risky, if the truth was told about the number of people visiting the apartments on 3rd May. Any watcher would have concluded that the chances of bumping into a checker were so high that the project would have been abandoned. If it was the case that the child was placed in G5A purposely, how could it have been known in advance that the children were going to be left alone in the apartment? Are we to assume that the apartment was chosen in advance, then suitable children were placed in there until eventually parents arrived who left their children alone? Hmmm.
IMO the people who were collecting for a charity could have been the people sussing out who had young children on the premises.
IMO the front door was used for entry as using the back with the steps where the people checking were up and down was too risky.
The window was opened for a quick getaway should the person be discovered in the bedroom.
The person could have been in the bedroom when Matthew did his check he didn't actually go inside the bedroom. Also the check was made not long after Gerry had left Jez, so the person could have thought no one would come to check for a while.
-
IMO the people who were collecting for a charity could have been the people sussing out who had young children on the premises.
IMO the front door was used for entry as using the back with the steps where the people checking were up and down was too risky.
The window was opened for a quick getaway should the person be discovered in the bedroom.
The person could have been in the bedroom when Matthew did his check he didn't actually go inside the bedroom. Also the check was made not long after Gerry had left Jez, so the person could have thought no one would come to check for a while.
As an exit to be used in an emergency the bedroom window offers a few hurdles ie the bed and chair in front of it.
-
It would be much easier to take an older child who could be persuaded to go with the person e.g 'mummy sent me to fetch you' etc. a child of two would not understand and scream and protest.
I totally disagree with you.
-
It would be much easier to take an older child who could be persuaded to go with the person e.g 'mummy sent me to fetch you' etc. a child of two would not understand and scream and protest.
Unless the person knew the child all of the above was an unknown quantity. The child could have been the type to scream blue murder if she awoke to find a stranger in her room. With two other children there who could then wake and join in that was a huge risk to take.
-
IMO the people who were collecting for a charity could have been the people sussing out who had young children on the premises.
IMO the front door was used for entry as using the back with the steps where the people checking were up and down was too risky.
The window was opened for a quick getaway should the person be discovered in the bedroom.
The person could have been in the bedroom when Matthew did his check he didn't actually go inside the bedroom. Also the check was made not long after Gerry had left Jez, so the person could have thought no one would come to check for a while.
The charity collector who called at G5A the week before didn't see any children, they were indoors and asleep, so he learned nothing. If the front door was used then someone had access to keys, so are we looking at an employee or relative or friend of an employee?
If you entered by the front door it was a few steps to the children's bedroom. In, pick up child, back out of door. Just like Matthew, of course, you wouldn't see all three children from the doorway, just twins and a messy bed under the window, depending on the degree of light. Would it occur to you to look round the corner for the third child or would you check the rest of the flat first before you returned and found where she was? Then you negotiate the cots to reach the window? Isn't it more likely that, having found what you want, you get out of there double quick?
Then you walk to the left, towards where Russell is in his flat? what if he emerges at that moment? You're caught bang to rights by a tall fit man with his friend's daughter!
-
Unless the person knew the child all of the above was an unknown quantity. The child could have been the type to scream blue murder if she awoke to find a stranger in her room. With two other children there who could then wake and join in that was a huge risk to take.
So many ifs in this case.
Whoever removed Madeleine from 5A, for whatever reason, was surely taking a huge risk.
If it was an abduction, I think that it would have been someone familiar with the layout in 5A and possibly, even known by Madeleine.
Just my opinion of course.
-
Interesting, I haven't seen any handwritten notes. I still think that a planned abduction of G5A would have been seen to be too risky, if the truth was told about the number of people visiting the apartments on 3rd May. Any watcher would have concluded that the chances of bumping into a checker were so high that the project would have been abandoned. If it was the case that the child was placed in G5A purposely, how could it have been known in advance that the children were going to be left alone in the apartment? Are we to assume that the apartment was chosen in advance, then suitable children were placed in there until eventually parents arrived who left their children alone? Hmmm.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MW_STAFF.htm This was used by the PJ in the very earliest days of the investigation to make sure that every member of staff was interviewed. Someone then added notes that probably should have been redacted when the file was made public.
Read the statement of the relevant individual. The said individual answers a number of your objections directly.
What does not appear in the file is the key date i.e. the advance warning that people planning an abduction might have. I have worked this out to be some time around mid-March, give or take a fortnight. That would give a lead time of around 4 to 8 weeks to set up such an operation, if indeed that is what happened.
Elsewhere on my blog I worked out a safe and relatively secure method of using the patio door as an entry point.
I haven't bothered with the same exercise assuming a front door entry by an intruder with a key, as that becomes trivial in this situation.
Read the relevant statement, and nearly everything falls into place. But of course, I cannot prove that it happened this way, therefore I am not claiming this possibility actually happened.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MW_STAFF.htm This was used by the PJ in the very earliest days of the investigation to make sure that every member of staff was interviewed. Someone then added notes that probably should have been redacted when the file was made public.
Read the statement of the relevant individual. The said individual answers a number of your objections directly.
What does not appear in the file is the key date i.e. the advance warning that people planning an abduction might have. I have worked this out to be some time around mid-March, give or take a fortnight. That would give a lead time of around 4 to 8 weeks to set up such an operation, if indeed that is what happened.
Elsewhere on my blog I worked out a safe and relatively secure method of using the patio door as an entry point.
I haven't bothered with the same exercise assuming a front door entry by an intruder with a key, as that becomes trivial in this situation.
Read the relevant statement, and nearly everything falls into place. But of course, I cannot prove that it happened this way, therefore I am not claiming this possibility actually happened.
Are you suggesting that the McCanns were targeted weeks in advance of their arrival?
From what we have been told, the place was positively crawling with little girls in pink so an abductor would be spoiled for choice without advance planning.
-
Are you suggesting that the McCanns were targeted weeks in advance of their arrival?
From what we have been told, the place was positively crawling with little girls in pink so an abductor would be spoiled for choice without advance planning.
No. I am not saying it happened this way, as I don't know what happened.
I am saying that certain things came together that solve every angle of what transpired, assuming a pre-planned abduction.
As to whether that actually occurred or not, I have no inside information.
In this scenario there is no need to assume Madeleine was THE target, as opposed to being very unlucky.
-
No. I am not saying it happened this way, as I don't know what happened.
I am saying that certain things came together that solve every angle of what transpired, assuming a pre-planned abduction.
As to whether that actually occurred or not, I have no inside information.
In this scenario there is no need to assume Madeleine was THE target, as opposed to being very unlucky.
So in your scenario is the draughtsman, who must be an employee, working for himself or a third party?
-
So in your scenario is the draughtsman, who must be an employee, working for himself or a third party?
Please, it is not my scenario, it is a scenario or this scenario. Unless by my, you mean I 'detected' the possibility.
In this scenario, the probable motivation of the information source/manipulator is simply cash, though it may be darker.
However, we are getting well away from the realm where there is evidence to support this scenario, and into the realm of speculation, where there is no evidence to support anything.
-
Please, it is not my scenario, it is a scenario or this scenario. Unless by my, you mean I 'detected' the possibility.
In this scenario, the probable motivation of the information source/manipulator is simply cash, though it may be darker.
However, we are getting well away from the realm where there is evidence to support this scenario, and into the realm of speculation, where there is no evidence to support anything.
There may have been little forensic evidence harvested from the scene ... but there remains a wealth of eye witness testimony which may or may not have been checked out at the time. Some of which may have been found relevant enough to be included in the evidence discovered at review which allowed Madeleine's case to be reopened.
-
Please, it is not my scenario, it is a scenario or this scenario. Unless by my, you mean I 'detected' the possibility.
In this scenario, the probable motivation of the information source/manipulator is simply cash, though it may be darker.
However, we are getting well away from the realm where there is evidence to support this scenario, and into the realm of speculation, where there is no evidence to support anything.
If an employee was paid for something I now wonder what was bought? Placing a suitable family into G5A? Information about children being here or there? Copies of apartment keys? Layouts of apartments? Did the person know the purpose of the information being sought?
-
If an employee was paid for something I now wonder what was bought? Placing a suitable family into G5A? Information about children being here or there? Copies of apartment keys? Layouts of apartments? Did the person know the purpose of the information being sought?
Read the statement. Make up your own mind about what was or was not bought.
-
Read the statement. Make up your own mind about what was or was not bought.
I've done my best but I'm still not sure whose statement, sorry. 8)><(
-
I've done my best but I'm still not sure whose statement, sorry. 8)><(
Booking admin.
-
As an exit to be used in an emergency the bedroom window offers a few hurdles ie the bed and chair in front of it.
If someone was coming in through the front door, do you think a bed and a chair woud be any problem to a desperate person wanting to escape?
-
Unless the person knew the child all of the above was an unknown quantity. The child could have been the type to scream blue murder if she awoke to find a stranger in her room. With two other children there who could then wake and join in that was a huge risk to take.
That is why I think it could have been someone who Madeleine was used to seeing, or the person sedated her before she could wake.
-
If someone was coming in through the front door, do you think a bed and a chair woud be any problem to a desperate person wanting to escape?
Did anyone enter through the front door? Gerald thought he had, and thought Kate had, but his memory let him down apparently.
I think the point is would anyone bother negotiating the cots in a dark room to open the window and shutters, thus risking awakening the children? Once in the bedroom, wouldn't they just pick up the nearest child and go?
-
Why do people think they know how an abductor would behave or why?
-
That is why I think it could have been someone who Madeleine was used to seeing, or the person sedated her before she could wake.
So one of the nannies particularly Cat, or one of the group. She didn't get much chance to see anyone else, did she?
As for sedation, you have to find something that would work. Real life is nothing like a story;
Chloroform;
If criminals used chloroform to knock out their victims in real life, they could be fighting them for up to 10 minutes before the victim loses consciousness. Additionally, too much of the drug could cause death by respiratory or cardiac arrest. Lastly,... chloroform actually loses its effectiveness when it comes in contact with oxygen, so if the attacker waited too long to make his move, holding the rag while he hides in the shadows, he wouldnt have much luck subduing his victim anyway.
http://www.hellawella.com/5-real-dramatically-misrepresented-drugs-tv-film
-
Did anyone enter through the front door? Gerald thought he had, and thought Kate had, but his memory let him down apparently.
I think the point is would anyone bother negotiating the cots in a dark room to open the window and shutters, thus risking awakening the children? Once in the bedroom, wouldn't they just pick up the nearest child and go?
Sorry I meant through the bedroom door.
-
So one of the nannies particularly Cat, or one of the group. She didn't get much chance to see anyone else, did she?
As for sedation, you have to find something that would work. Real life is nothing like a story;
Chloroform;
If criminals used chloroform to knock out their victims in real life, they could be fighting them for up to 10 minutes before the victim loses consciousness. Additionally, too much of the drug could cause death by respiratory or cardiac arrest. Lastly,... chloroform actually loses its effectiveness when it comes in contact with oxygen, so if the attacker waited too long to make his move, holding the rag while he hides in the shadows, he wouldnt have much luck subduing his victim anyway.
http://www.hellawella.com/5-real-dramatically-misrepresented-drugs-tv-film
Doesn't have to be one of the nannies, just someone she saw about during the holiday, maybe someone who said hello to her parents.
edited to add - Raymond Hewlett used paint stripped to sedate his victims.
-
Doesn't have to be one of the nannies, just someone she saw about during the holiday, maybe someone who said hello to her parents.
edited to add - Raymond Hewlett used paint stripper to sedate his victims.
Lots of methods to subdue, if it was an abduction. Stun gun/taser is another and instant.
-
Why do people think they know how an abductor would behave or why?
I have seen so many threads on here where people have posted their opinions as to what the McCanns and their friends were thinking or feeling. No-one seems to have ever explored what kind of person the abductor was, what difficulties he faced and how he may have overcome them. As the thread shows so far, once you do that, using the information he would have had at the time (not hindsight), the difficulties start to become clearer.
-
Doesn't have to be one of the nannies, just someone she saw about during the holiday, maybe someone who said hello to her parents.
edited to add - Raymond Hewlett used paint stripped to sedate his victims.
Seeing someone outside and waking to find them in your bedroom at night are two different things, I think. Do you have a cite for the paint stripper please?
-
Lots of methods to subdue, if it was an abduction. Stun gun/taser is another and instant.
Momentary and then screeeeaaaam! In my opinion of course. Would a three year old survive 50.000 volts?
-
Momentary and then screeeeaaaam! In my opinion of course. Would a three year old survive 50.000 volts?
50,000 volts would be a high voltage there are lower voltage tasers on sale. They would instantly paralyse temporarily, for how long depends on how long it was in position.
God forbid anyone should use one on a child. Just another possibility of course.
-
Seeing someone outside and waking to find them in your bedroom at night are two different things, I think. Do you have a cite for the paint stripper please?
Cites are at the bottom of this page
http://raymondhewlett.blogspot.co.uk/p/raymond-hewlett-timeline.html
-
Momentary and then screeeeaaaam! In my opinion of course. Would a three year old survive 50.000 volts?
Oh dear! I wish I hadn't bother to check out the laser guns used to quieten children, G.
Just a few:-
Clinton, N.C. Two armed men wearing tactical vests with SWAT on them invaded a home and used stun guns on children, including a 4-month-old, authorities said.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/03/arrested-home-invasion-stun-guns-used-children/28427757/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/caretaker-stun-gun-children-punishment-cops-article-1.1598325
https://kidsinthesystem.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/stun-guns-used-on-u-s-children/
-
I have seen so many threads on here where people have posted their opinions as to what the McCanns and their friends were thinking or feeling. No-one seems to have ever explored what kind of person the abductor was, what difficulties he faced and how he may have overcome them. As the thread shows so far, once you do that, using the information he would have had at the time (not hindsight), the difficulties start to become clearer.
the difference is, we know something about the McCanns, we know nothing at all about the abductor or his / her motive for abduction. You keep saying that "it would be too risky" or assuming that you know what age child would be the more attractive victim but as past cases have shown us there is no such thing as too risky and no age is out of bounds.
-
the difference is, we know something about the McCanns, we know nothing at all about the abductor or his / her motive for abduction. You keep saying that "it would be too risky" or assuming that you know what age child would be the more attractive victim but as past cases have shown us there is no such thing as too risky and no age is out of bounds.
What abduction alfred ?
Again, stop typing as though it is a proven fact.
IT ISN'T.
-
the difference is, we know something about the McCanns, we know nothing at all about the abductor or his / her motive for abduction. You keep saying that "it would be too risky" or assuming that you know what age child would be the more attractive victim but as past cases have shown us there is no such thing as too risky and no age is out of bounds.
You know nothing about the McCanns, you just think you do. if there was an abductor we know he/they struck during the evening rather than at night. He entered an apartment. We know the risks he ran. Other cases have been quoted in their tens, but none had people in and out like this one, so this one was much more risky than any I've seen. Although no age is out of bounds it's rare for under fives to be taken for sexual motives. So this abduction is extremely risky and extremely rare statistically.
-
You know nothing about the McCanns, you just think you do. if there was an abductor we know he/they struck during the evening rather than at night. He entered an apartment. We know the risks he ran. Other cases have been quoted in their tens, but none had people in and out like this one, so this one was much more risky than any I've seen. Although no age is out of bounds it's rare for under fives to be taken for sexual motives. So this abduction is extremely risky and extremely rare statistically.
we know quite a bit about the mccanns....the very fact that abduction is so rare is why they felt it was safe to leave the children...rare things happen rarely...but they happen
-
You know nothing about the McCanns, you just think you do. if there was an abductor we know he/they struck during the evening rather than at night. He entered an apartment. We know the risks he ran. Other cases have been quoted in their tens, but none had people in and out like this one, so this one was much more risky than any I've seen. Although no age is out of bounds it's rare for under fives to be taken for sexual motives. So this abduction is extremely risky and extremely rare statistically.
I know very much more about the McCanns than I know about the person or people that took Madeleine -fact. We know the risks taken by the abductor and we also know that, though rare, similar risks have been taken by individuals in their quest to abduct young children - fact.
-
we know quite a bit about the mccanns....the very fact that abduction is so rare is why they felt it was safe to leave the children...rare things happen rarely...but they happen
What we know about the mccanns is simple.
They left their children by themselves in a foreign country, for 5 nights in a row, with infrequent checks, whilst they 'socialized'.
Great parenting. %56& %56& %56&
-
I know very much more about the McCanns than I know about the person or people that took Madeleine -fact. We know the risks taken by the abductor and we also know that, though rare, similar risks have been taken by individuals in their quest to abduct young children - fact.
What abductor alfred ??
Mr. Spooky ? 8)--))
-
What we know about the mccanns is simple.
They left their children by themselves in a foreign country, for 5 nights in a row, with infrequent checks, whilst they 'socialized'.
Great parenting. %56& %56& %56&
some of us know more
-
I know very much more about the McCanns than I know about the person or people that took Madeleine -fact. We know the risks taken by the abductor and we also know that, though rare, similar risks have been taken by individuals in their quest to abduct young children - fact.
You know as much about the Mccanns as you do about any other couple in the news, which means nothing otherwise why did Gerald Mccann complain so bitterly about the way they were portrayed?
Please name one abductor who took similar risks; 5 minute gaps between checks, other people out and about (crecheman, the Moyes, the girl from block 6) three small children in one room, entering the apartment to snatch one.
-
some of us know more
No you don't.
You merely type the mccann supporter mantra.
-
You know as much about the Mccanns as you do about any other couple in the news, which means nothing otherwise why did Gerald Mccann complain so bitterly about the way they were portrayed?
Please name one abductor who took similar risks; 5 minute gaps between checks, other people out and about (crecheman, the Moyes, the girl from block 6) three small children in one room, entering the apartment to snatch one.
how do you know how much I know about the mccanns...making assumptions again,,...try and stick to facts not your opinion
-
Quoted the wrong post in reply.
This is the one I was replying to:
You know as much about the Mccanns as you do about any other couple in the news, which means nothing otherwise why did Gerald Mccann complain so bitterly about the way they were portrayed?
Please name one abductor who took similar risks; 5 minute gaps between checks, other people out and about (crecheman, the Moyes, the girl from block 6) three small children in one room, entering the apartment to snatch one.
[/quote]
I don't know about similar risks, but I would say Peter Voisey took a far greater risk in abducting an 8-year old girl from the bath of a ground-floor flat whilst the family was at home, and was only caught, days after the abduction, due to astute detective work and excellent cooperation from the young girl he abducted (who mercifully survived)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6068862.stm
-
You know as much about the Mccanns as you do about any other couple in the news, which means nothing otherwise why did Gerald Mccann complain so bitterly about the way they were portrayed?
Please name one abductor who took similar risks; 5 minute gaps between checks, other people out and about (crecheman, the Moyes, the girl from block 6) three small children in one room, entering the apartment to snatch one.
I can name one abductor...the one SY are looking for
-
I can name one abductor...the one SY are looking for
Go on then...
-
Go on then...
go on then...what
-
I can name one abductor...the one SY are looking for
Mr. Spooky ? 8)--))
-
You know as much about the Mccanns as you do about any other couple in the news, which means nothing otherwise why did Gerald Mccann complain so bitterly about the way they were portrayed?
Please name one abductor who took similar risks; 5 minute gaps between checks, other people out and about (crecheman, the Moyes, the girl from block 6) three small children in one room, entering the apartment to snatch one.
there are abductors who have taken children from homes in which the parents were already present, the case I quoted at the beginning of this thread is one of them. also, it is an indisputable fact that I know more about the McCanns than I do about the abductor, yet you are still disputing this fact!!
-
there are abductors who have taken children from homes in which the parents were already present, the case I quoted at the beginning of this thread is one of them. also, it is an indisputable fact that I know more about the McCanns than I do about the abductor, yet you are still disputing this fact!!
Absolutely no proof of an abductor in this case.
-
Absolutely no proof of an abductor in this case.
there is proof...on the balance of probabilities ...of abduction
-
there is proof...on the balance of probabilities ...of abduction
I think we are still waiting for your workings in that score.
-
[quote author=Slartibartfast lin....
as posters here want to claim ...the dogs are circumstantial evidence...the dogs recovered human remains...the mccanns rang sky news first...maddie died in a fall from the sofa...and other ridiculous things...then I wont waste time explaining my absolute rock solid logic
-
[quote author=Slartibartfast lin....
as posters here want to claim ...the dogs are circumstantial evidence...the dogs recovered human remains...the mccanns rang sky news first...maddie died in a fall from the sofa...and other ridiculous things...then I wont waste time explaining my absolute rock solid logic
Is that won't or can't?
-
This is the one I was replying to:
You know as much about the Mccanns as you do about any other couple in the news, which means nothing otherwise why did Gerald Mccann complain so bitterly about the way they were portrayed?
Please name one abductor who took similar risks; 5 minute gaps between checks, other people out and about (crecheman, the Moyes, the girl from block 6) three small children in one room, entering the apartment to snatch one.
I don't know about similar risks, but I would say Peter Voisey took a far greater risk in abducting an 8-year old girl from the bath of a ground-floor flat whilst the family was at home, and was only caught, days after the abduction, due to astute detective work and excellent cooperation from the young girl he abducted (who mercifully survived)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6068862.stm
Firstly she was 6 years old. Secondly it was a house. Thirdly he was thought to know the layout of these houses here with downstairs bathrooms. Fourthly there were no men in the house - not like running into one of the Tapas men exactly, was it? Of course finally, he dumped her 15 minutes later.
-
This is the one I was replying to:
You know as much about the Mccanns as you do about any other couple in the news, which means nothing otherwise why did Gerald Mccann complain so bitterly about the way they were portrayed?
Please name one abductor who took similar risks; 5 minute gaps between checks, other people out and about (crecheman, the Moyes, the girl from block 6) three small children in one room, entering the apartment to snatch one.
I don't know about similar risks, but I would say Peter Voisey took a far greater risk in abducting an 8-year old girl from the bath of a ground-floor flat whilst the family was at home, and was only caught, days after the abduction, due to astute detective work and excellent cooperation from the young girl he abducted (who mercifully survived)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6068862.stm
The problem with making the assumption that these people would have the constraints on them that normal people would have is that they do not behave as normal people for the simple reason they are not normal people.
It is not normal behaviour to enter a home with the family in residence to abduct a child ... but as you have ably highlighted ... it happens.
The method used to silence the child to enable her abduction was to threaten her, it was very effective.
-
[quote author=Slartibartfast lin....
as posters here want to claim ...the dogs are circumstantial evidence...the dogs recovered human remains...the mccanns rang sky news first...maddie died in a fall from the sofa...and other ridiculous things...then I wont waste time explaining my absolute rock solid logic
What logic ?
-
Is that won't or can't?
...
it took a year for sceptics...such as yourself to be convinced by me that the mccanns were never asked to prove their innocence....it took another year for sceptics to accept there was evidence of abduction...that's why Stephen is now asking for proof......it is easy to show...on the balance of probabilities,.....that is a level of proof...that maddie was abducted...I just cant be bothered as you have shown when you lose the argument you remove posts and block any further posts by me
-
...
it took a year for sceptics...such as yourself to be convinced by me that the mccanns were never asked to prove their innocence....it took another year for sceptics to accept there was evidence of abduction...that's why Stephen is now asking for proof......it is easy to show...on the balance of probabilities,.....that is a level of proof...that maddie was abducted...I just cant be bothered as you have shown when you lose the argument you remove posts and block any further posts by me
Very funny.
-
...
it took a year for sceptics...such as yourself to be convinced by me that the mccanns were never asked to prove their innocence....it took another year for sceptics to accept there was evidence of abduction...that's why Stephen is now asking for proof......it is easy to show...on the balance of probabilities,.....that is a level of proof...that maddie was abducted...I just cant be bothered as you have shown when you lose the argument you remove posts and block any further posts by me
The legal summary stated quite clearly that the reconstitution could have been of use to the McCanns because, although they may not be required to prove their innocence, they lost an opportunity to demonstrate it;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
The legal summary stated quite clearly that the reconstitution could have been of use to the McCanns because, although they may not be required to prove their innocence, they lost an opportunity to demonstrate it;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Here we go round the mulberry bush again!
-
Please try and stay with the topic of the thread. Thank you.
-
Firstly she was 6 years old. Secondly it was a house. Thirdly he was thought to know the layout of these houses here with downstairs bathrooms. Fourthly there were no men in the house - not like running into one of the Tapas men exactly, was it? Of course finally, he dumped her 15 minutes later.
None of the above points are relevant IMO. A six year old is more likely to put up a fight, be more difficult to pick up, run away with than a small 4 year old, a house is just as easy or hard to break into as an apartment, an abductor in Pdl may have been familiar with the apartment layout, the abductor in Wales was not to know if a man was present or not, she was dumped because the abductor crashed his car (I believe, will have to check) etc etc etc
ETA don't know where I got the idea Voisey had acar accident buy still don't see the relevance of him dumping the girl after - if anything it shows he took an even greater risk by releasing the victim and key eye witness.
-
None of the above points are relevant IMO. A six year old is more likely to put up a fight, be more difficult to pick up, run away with than a small 4 year old, a house is just as easy or hard to break into as an apartment, an abductor in Pdl may have been familiar with the apartment layout, the abductor in Wales was not to know if a man was present or not, she was dumped because the abductor crashed his car (I believe, will have to check) etc etc etc
ETA don't know where I got the idea Voisey had acar accident buy still don't see the relevance of him dumping the girl after - if anything it shows he took an even greater risk by releasing the victim and key eye witness.
The Voisey abduction was Tyneside.
-
The Voisey abduction was Tyneside.
Yes, my mistake - for some reason I always think of it as happening in Wales - false memory, you see how easily it occurs! But whether it happened in Wales, Tyneside, or Portugal, my point is the same.
-
Now I know why I am mixing up my abductions - this one happened around the time of the Tyneside abduction and rape, it occurred in Newport Wales, and the child abducted was 3, taken from home and the abductor crashed the car with her in it. See, I'm not going completely mad!
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/my-little-girls-been-through-2356745
-
More on that case - man found guilty of abducting a 3 year old from her home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5069656.stm
-
Here we go round the mulberry bush again!
With davel leading the lurch off topic again!
-
None of the above points are relevant IMO. A six year old is more likely to put up a fight, be more difficult to pick up, run away with than a small 4 year old, a house is just as easy or hard to break into as an apartment, an abductor in Pdl may have been familiar with the apartment layout, the abductor in Wales was not to know if a man was present or not, she was dumped because the abductor crashed his car (I believe, will have to check) etc etc etc
ETA don't know where I got the idea Voisey had acar accident buy still don't see the relevance of him dumping the girl after - if anything it shows he took an even greater risk by releasing the victim and key eye witness.
A six year old is more likely to understand and keep quiet when threatened. The back door was unlocked. If the guy knew the houses he was likely to have known that the mother had separated from her husband and was living with another woman (gossip). All in all, it was nothing like the same, which is the point.
An abductor in PdL knew there were checks every five to ten minutes; 9pm, 9.05-9.15pm. 9.15-9.20pm, 9.30pm. Then 9.40pm, 9.45-9.50pm, 10pm. In theory it's in and out, but that's with hindsight. In fact it was busier than it was in the daytime. There were unknown quantities with three children who may all scream. Russell O'Brien was nearby and could have come to see what was happening if shutters were raised. Too many unknowns imo.
-
...
it took a year for sceptics...such as yourself to be convinced by me that the mccanns were never asked to prove their innocence....it took another year for sceptics to accept there was evidence of abduction...that's why Stephen is now asking for proof......it is easy to show...on the balance of probabilities,.....that is a level of proof...that maddie was abducted...I just cant be bothered as you have shown when you lose the argument you remove posts and block any further posts by me
What evidence of abduction ?
I believe when the two current investigations emerge from the shadows, they will say they know no more than was known over 8 years ago.
-
The legal summary stated quite clearly that the reconstitution could have been of use to the McCanns because, although they may not be required to prove their innocence, they lost an opportunity to demonstrate it;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
you have highlighted the translation error that I discovered and why most now use the word demonstrate instead of prove.....thank you
-
What evidence of abduction ?
I believe when the two current investigations emerge from the shadows, they will say they know no more than was known over 8 years ago.
look up definition of evidence....what you believe is of no importance
-
look up definition of evidence....what you believe is of no importance
I already know.
As to your posts... ?>)()<
-
I already know.
As to your posts... ?>)()<
then you will know there is evidence of abduction
-
then you will know there is evidence of abduction
Come on then, let us know what that is.
As it is quite apparent the current investigations have ground to a dead stop.
-
Come on then, let us know what that is.
As it is quite apparent the current investigations have ground to a dead stop.
have you forgotten how many times you have asked the same question and I have answered...streuth
-
have you forgotten how many times you have asked the same question and I have answered...streuth
No, you referred to another thread.
No evidence on there.
Meanwhile the investigations are at ground zero.
Rather than keep saying there is evidence, try citing it instead.
By the way, Madeleine disappearing from the apartment, can be accounted for by several possibilities.
and of course, there are no forensic results to indicate an abductor(s).
-
No, you referred to another thread.
No evidence on there.
Meanwhile the investigations are at ground zero.
Rather than keep saying there is evidence, try citing it instead.
By the way, Madeleine disappearing from the apartment, can be accounted for by several possibilities.
and of course, there are no forensic results to indicate an abductor(s).
do you remember there being a thread on evidence for abduction on which you posted....or has it gone right out of your head
-
do you remember there being a thread on evidence for abduction on which you posted....or has it gone right out of your head
NOTHING OF ANY CONSEQUENCE ON THERE.
Now try citing real evidence of abduction.
-
NOTHING OF ANY CONSEQUENCE ON THERE.
Now try citing real evidence of abduction.
first you ask for evidence...then real evidence....what's the difference
-
first you ask for evidence...then real evidence....what's the difference
Why do you bother with your waffle ?
You can't cite evidence of abduction.
-
Why do you bother with your waffle ?
You can't cite evidence of abduction.
would that be evidence or real evidence
-
I believe that Scotland Yard and The PJ are watching and waiting, and possibly even searching. They might well even know where Madeleine is.
The one thing they aren't doing is sitting around discussing how to end it because it's going nowhere.
-
I believe that Scotland Yard and The PJ are watching and waiting, and possibly even searching. They might well even know where Madeleine is.
The one thing they aren't doing is sitting around discussing how to end it because it's going nowhere.
We shall see on that one. 8(0(*
-
NOTHING OF ANY CONSEQUENCE ON THERE.
Now try citing real evidence of abduction.
Could you please explain why Andy Redwood said that Madeleine had been taken by a stranger?
-
Could you please explain why Andy Redwood said that Madeleine had been taken by a stranger?
He believed that.
Now where is the evidence ?
He also stated Madeleine might be alive or dead.
-
Could you please explain why Andy Redwood said that Madeleine had been taken by a stranger?
He believed...
-
We shall see on that one. 8(0(*
If they decide to end it then it will be quick. There won't be months on end of sitting around doing nothing. Six months could amount to 1 Million Pounds. This simply would not be allowed to happen if they knew for certainty that it was going nowhere.
And I don't believe that The PJ would do this either.
Nope, they know something, but for obvious reasons aren't telling.
-
Why do you bother with your waffle ?
You can't cite evidence of abduction.
Madeleine missing and absence of evidence implicating her parents or any of their friends, in its own right, is evidence of abduction, together with absence of information or evidence (any of us are aware of) of Madeleine's whereabouts.
-
He believed that.
Now where is the evidence ?
He also stated Madeleine might be alive or dead.
Well if he believed that, then he thought Madeleine had been abducted Stephen.
He stated that they would investigate that Madeleine could be alive or dead, Stephen, get it right. They did investigate a burglary gone wrong where the burglar might have killed Madeleine and taken her body.
-
If they decide to end it then it will be quick. There won't be months on end of sitting around doing nothing. Six months could amount to 1 Million Pounds. This simply would not be allowed to happen if they knew for certainty that it was going nowhere.
And I don't believe that The PJ would do this either.
Nope, they know something, but for obvious reasons aren't telling.
You may be surprised. 8)-)))
-
Madeleine missing and absence of evidence implicating her parents or any of their friends, in its own right, is evidence of abduction, together with absence of information or evidence (any of us are aware of) of Madeleine's whereabouts.
That is not evidence of abduction.
A lack of evidence also does not mean a crime didn't occur.
-
Well if he believed that, then he thought Madeleine had been abducted Stephen.
He stated that they would investigate that Madeleine could be alive or dead, Stephen, get it right. They did investigate a burglary gone wrong where the burglar might have killed Madeleine and taken her body.
Then there is BHH's slip.
-
Madeleine missing and absence of evidence implicating her parents or any of their friends, in its own right, is evidence of abduction, together with absence of information or evidence (any of us are aware of) of Madeleine's whereabouts.
absolutely correct
-
Then there is BHH's slip.
They were investigating whether a burglar could have killed Madeleine that was why the word murdered was mentioned. Doesn't mean they know she is dead.
-
You may be surprised. 8)-)))
I shall be very happy when I wake up one morning to discover that Madeleine has been found. It's the logistics of retrieving her that interest me now.
I have done all of the hows, whys and wherefores. Now for me it is just when.
There certainly are not a bunch of detectives, British or Portuguese, loafing about doing nothing.
-
Then there is BHH's slip.
the slip as you call it confirms the non involvement of the parents.........and therefore strengthens the case for abduction...well done
-
I shall be very happy when I wake up one morning to discover that Madeleine has been found. It's the logistics of retrieving her that interest me now.
I have done all of the hows, whys and wherefores. Now for me it is just when.
There certainly are not a bunch of detectives, British or Portuguese, loafing about doing nothing.
I would not make a bet on Madeleine being found alive if I were you.
-
the slip as you call it confirms the non involvement of the parents.........and therefore strengthens the case for abduction...well done
Not in the slightest.
They have found nothing.
Ground zero.
-
Not in the slightest.
They have found nothing.
Ground zero.
No one with any intelligence believes the mccanns murdered maddie therefore the statement by BHH confirms the non involvement of the parents...don't you agree
-
I would not make a bet on Madeleine being found alive if I were you.
I don't bet on the lives of children. I just hope, while using a bit of common sense and knowledge of logistics.
-
I don't bet on the lives of children. I just hope, while using a bit of common sense and knowledge of logistics.
Logistics and statistics would say she won't be found alive.
-
No one with any intelligence believes the mccanns murdered maddie therefore the statement by BHH confirms the non involvement of the parents...don't you agree
You should have read my comments on that matter.
Well known.
Perhaps you should throw caution to the wind. 8(0(*
-
Logistics and statistics would say she won't be found alive.
I thought you understood statistics...they support the fact that she MAY be found alive...
-
I thought you understood statistics...they support the fact that she MAY be found alive...
...and unfortunately give even more support to the fact that she may not.
-
...and unfortunately give even more support to the fact that she may not.
we all know that maddie is almost certainly died....but there is a small chance she is alive...that should not be forgotten or ignored
-
we all know that maddie is almost certainly died....but there is a small chance she is alive...that should not be forgotten or ignored
So if she was alive, where would she be ?
There has yet been no reasoned or logical answer to that question.
-
Logistics and statistics would say she won't be found alive.
One child found alive is a statistic, Stephen. A knowledge of logistics is why I am positive that The McCanns are not responsible, and couldn't have hidden Madeleine's body.
So where does hope come into your life? Some of us have it and some of us don't. I always feel desperately sorry for people who don't understand hope.
-
One child found alive is a statistic, Stephen. A knowledge of logistics is why I am positive that The McCanns are not responsible, and couldn't have hidden Madeleine's body.
So where does hope come into your life? Some of us have it and some of us don't. I always feel desperately sorry for people who don't understand hope.
You believe the mccanns are not responsible, would be a better reply.
What knowledge do you have of statistics as regards child disappearances do you have Eleanor, or for that matter stats in general ?
-
So if she was alive, where would she be ?
There has yet been no reasoned or logical answer to that question.
why don't you stop asking ridiculous questions...
-
One child found alive is a statistic, Stephen. A knowledge of logistics is why I am positive that The McCanns are not responsible, and couldn't have hidden Madeleine's body.
So where does hope come into your life? Some of us have it and some of us don't. I always feel desperately sorry for people who don't understand hope.
At least where Stephen is concerned, hope doesn't figure in his mindset.
The McCannsdunsomethingdreadfulandcovereditup.
That's why he repeats, at any and every given opportunity, noevidenceofabduction (etc) ...
-
You believe the mccanns are not responsible, would be a better reply.
What knowledge do you have of statistics as regards child disappearances do you have Eleanor, or for that matter stats in general ?
As you stated
Logistics and statistics would say she won't be found alive.
then your understanding of statistics is poor
-
At least where Stephen is concerned, hope doesn't figure in his mindset.
The McCannsdunsomethingdreadfulandcovereditup.
That's why he repeats, at any and every given opportunity, noevidenceofabduction (etc) ...
You repeat ABDUCTOR or ABDUCTION ad nauseum.
-
As you stated
Logistics and statistics would say she won't be found alive.
then your understanding of statistics is poor
Well provide a reasonable explanation of where she would be if alive.
-
You repeat ABDUCTOR or ABDUCTION ad nauseum.
Temper, temper ....
-
Well provide a reasonable explanation of where she would be if alive.
I can't be bothered ....you will simply ask the same question time again
-
we all know that maddie is almost certainly died....but there is a small chance she is alive...that should not be forgotten or ignored
Sorry. I don't agree on the Certainly.
-
I can't be bothered ....you will simply ask the same question time again
I ask the question again, because no mccann supporter has given an answer.
-
I ask the question again, because no mccann supporter has given an answer.
Only the person who removed Madeleine from 5A can possibly know where she is..Dead or alive.
-
You believe the mccanns are not responsible, would be a better reply.
What knowledge do you have of statistics as regards child disappearances do you have Eleanor, or for that matter stats in general ?
I post as I please, Stephen.
Logistics generally applies to the removal, transportation and disposal of any object, including a dead body. You just need a bit of common sense and a logical mind, coupled with a basic knowledge of mathematics to work out that The McCanns couldn't have Dunnit.
-
I ask the question again, because no mccann supporter has given an answer.
I can give an answer but I don't want to get into a debate with someone who does not understand basics...that's you
-
Where did Madeleine disappear to?
Facts as we know
The child was not where she had been left in her bed in 5A when checked at 10PM
Her shoes were still in the apartment
The window was found open
although not believed by some.
The parents were dining until the alert.
The area was searched extensively along with dogs and later helicopters, 4x4s, horse riders and motorbikes and she was not found
Dead or alive.
..
No witnesses saw anyone removing a child from 5A during daylight, or later during the busy time of checking and then after the alert, when many were searching.
.
So
Options:-
1.Wandered, after negotiating door and gates, unseen, with no footwear on rough surfaces and met with an accident ?
.
Why not found?
2.The other option as some believe
.all done unseen and child unfound despite thorough searching?
..Why not found?
3. Smithman sighting (which category this comes into, depends on your beliefs)?
.
.Why not found?
4. Abducted by persons. unknown and unseen?
.unless of course you take JTs sighting into consideration?.
.Would not be easily found and could be anywhere
Which is most likely????
-
I post as I please, Stephen.
Logistics generally applies to the removal, transportation and disposal of any object, including a dead body. You just need a bit of common sense and a logical mind, coupled with a basic knowledge of mathematics to work out that The McCanns couldn't have Dunnit.
No, that is your opinion, and no more.
-
Okay, cut the insults. And if the rest of you could refrain from Quoting insulting remarks, then I won't have to remove those posts.
-
Where did Madeleine disappear to?
Facts as we know
The child was not where she had been left in her bed in 5A when checked at 10PM
Her shoes were still in the apartment
The window was found open
although not believed by some.
The parents were dining until the alert.
The area was searched extensively along with dogs and later helicopters, 4x4s, horse riders and motorbikes and she was not found
Dead or alive.
..
No witnesses saw anyone removing a child from 5A during daylight, or later during the busy time of checking and then after the alert, when many were searching.
.
So
Options:-
1.Wandered, after negotiating door and gates, unseen, with no footwear on rough surfaces and met with an accident ?
.
Why not found?
2.The other option as some believe
.all done unseen and child unfound despite thorough searching?
..Why not found?
3. Smithman sighting (which category this comes into, depends on your beliefs)?
.
.Why not found?
4. Abducted by persons. unknown and unseen?
.unless of course you take JTs sighting into consideration?.
.Would not be easily found and could be anywhere
Which is most likely????
The window being open, was not independently verified before 10pm.
The ONLY identified fingerprints were kate mccanns.
The parents were eating and consuming alcohol.
-
I can give an answer but I don't want to get into a debate with someone who does not understand basics...that's you
I understand the basics.
You also don't provide cites.
-
The window being open, was not independently verified before 10pm.
The ONLY identified fingerprints were kate mccanns.
The parents were eating and consuming alcohol.
What has that to do with my post, Stephen?
-
What has that to do with my post, Stephen?
Everything.
It is noticeable when details are omitted.
-
Everything.
It is noticeable when details are omitted.
They were the basic facts. I did say that the window was not believed by all and how the hell would, what the parents were drinking change the possibilities as to how Madeleine may have disappeared?
-
They were the basic facts. I did say that the window was not believed by all and how the hell would, what the parents were drinking change the possibilities as to how Madeleine may have disappeared?
You were being selective Anna.
It is not an established fact the window was open before 10 pm.
-
You were being selective Anna.
It is not an established fact the window was open before 10 pm.
Read back...
The window was found open
although not believed by some.
-
Read back...
The window was found open
although not believed by some.
It isn''t a proven fact.
The only fingerprints identified were hers.
No one saw the 'window open' bar kate mccann before 10 pm.
-
It isn''t a proven fact.
The only fingerprints identified were hers.
No one saw the 'window open' bar kate mccann before 10 pm.
If the open window was part of a cunning plan ... why was the shutter lowered upsetting a 'carefully staged abduction scene'? How terribly careless was that?
Please do not forget the initial and most vitally important forensic testing carried out in the apartment which was botched, perhaps ruining all opportunity to locate trace evidence of an intruder had any been left.
Dr McCann's fingerprints on the window glass count for nothing as she is on record as having checked there ... neither the cots - bed - or chair having impeded her access.
That you may not believe the window was opened by an intruder is unimportant and pales into insignificance given that Scotland Yard obviously believe it, as do the Plolicia Judicairia, both of whom are putting a lot of effort into identifying that person.
For all we know they may have already accomplished that ... time will tell.
-
If the open window was part of a cunning plan ... why was the shutter lowered upsetting a 'carefully staged abduction scene'? How terribly careless was that?
Please do not forget the initial and most vitally important forensic testing carried out in the apartment which was botched, perhaps ruining all opportunity to locate trace evidence of an intruder had any been left.
Dr McCann's fingerprints on the window glass count for nothing as she is on record as having checked there ... neither the cots - bed - or chair having impeded her access.
That you may not believe the window was opened by an intruder is unimportant and pales into insignificance given that Scotland Yard obviously believe it, as do the Plolicia Judicairia, both of whom are putting a lot of effort into identifying that person.
For all we know they may have already accomplished that ... time will tell.
A door was open.
No need for the windows or shutters.
-
A door was open.
No need for the windows or shutters.
so what evidence supports your belief,,,accident and cover up.....
-
Could you please explain why Andy Redwood said that Madeleine had been taken by a stranger?
The last comment by OG before DCI Wall took over appears to be this made in November(ish) 2014:
"The Scotland Yard squad says it is keeping an open mind about the case".
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/546700/Murat-quizzed-for-four-hours-in-Yard-hunt-for-Madeleine
The Express could be making it all up of course.
-
I post as I please, Stephen.
Logistics generally applies to the removal, transportation and disposal of any object, including a dead body. You just need a bit of common sense and a logical mind, coupled with a basic knowledge of mathematics to work out that The McCanns couldn't have Dunnit.
Within the forums rules of engagement one hopes 8(0(*
-
Within the forums rules of engagement one hopes 8(0(*
I should hope so @)(++(*
-
A six year old is more likely to understand and keep quiet when threatened. The back door was unlocked. If the guy knew the houses he was likely to have known that the mother had separated from her husband and was living with another woman (gossip). All in all, it was nothing like the same, which is the point.
An abductor in PdL knew there were checks every five to ten minutes; 9pm, 9.05-9.15pm. 9.15-9.20pm, 9.30pm. Then 9.40pm, 9.45-9.50pm, 10pm. In theory it's in and out, but that's with hindsight. In fact it was busier than it was in the daytime. There were unknown quantities with three children who may all scream. Russell O'Brien was nearby and could have come to see what was happening if shutters were raised. Too many unknowns imo.
The six year old in question screamed the place down. The backdoor may have been unlocked, there was also an unlocked door in Apartment 5a, and if Apartment 5a had been watched an established pattern of checking would have made it easier to gauge when it was the best time to enter ie: directly after a check. One of the things you seem unprepared to accept is that individuals who enter a premises unlawfully to steal a child are willing to take what to normal people would seem the most foolhardy of risks, for some of them it is all part of the thrill.
-
He believed...
Why did he believe that Madeleine had been taken by a stranger?
-
Madeleine missing and absence of evidence implicating her parents or any of their friends, in its own right, is evidence of abduction, together with absence of information or evidence (any of us are aware of) of Madeleine's whereabouts.
A fallacious argument. It can be turned around by saying that Madeleine missing and absence of evidence of abduction is evidence implicating her parents and/or their friends. An absence of evidence is not evidence.
-
so what evidence supports your belief,,,accident and cover up.....
Do you enjoy going round in circles ?
-
A fallacious argument. It can be turned around by saying that Madeleine missing and absence of evidence of abduction is evidence implicating her parents and/or their friends. An absence of evidence is not evidence.
initially the absence implicated her parents...SY...ruled them out ....her absence is evidence of abduction and anyone who does not accept that does not understand what evidence means
-
Do you enjoy going round in circles ?
as I have said...you ask for evidence of abduction but have no evidence to support your own beliefs
-
I should hope so @)(++(*
No one's perfect. 8**8:/: Some of us are just a bit more perfect than others.
-
initially the absence implicated her parents...SY...ruled them out ....her absence is evidence of abduction and anyone who does not accept that does not understand what evidence means
How do you think they were ruled out then? They were the last to see the child. To rule them out someone else had to see the child after they did.
The fact that the child is absent isn't evidence that she was abducted because there are other possible explanations.
-
as I have said...you ask for evidence of abduction but have no evidence to support your own beliefs
Ding dong, wrong again.
-
Ding dong, wrong again.
then lets hear it then
-
then lets hear it then
I'm still waiting for the carte blanche evidence of abduction dave.
You haven't delivered.
-
I'm still waiting for the carte blanche evidence of abduction dave.
You haven't delivered.
you haven't delivered
-
you haven't delivered
That is your speciality dave. 8)--))
-
That is your speciality dave. 8)--))
and we all know what your speciality is
-
Enough.
-
AFAIAC....the available evidence points to abduction....and it seems that is what SY think too
-
I wonder what was meant by:
"The Scotland Yard squad says it is keeping an open mind about the case". when said back end of 2014 ?
Oh! I know; either the press made it up or it is a coded message for "we are only considering abduction".
-
A door was open.
No need for the windows or shutters.
Quite, a door was unlocked ... and that was going to be reported to the police.
So why go to the hassle of 'simulation'?
Or why bother with such an amateur 'simulation'?
They are intelligent people, surely they were capable of preparing a far more convincing 'simulation' than that one?
I for one get quite distressed when the realisation of the amount of time wasted in looking for this little girl is highlighted by the continuing search for her being conducted by the Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard eight years after the event.
If as much effort had been expended at the time in looking for the person who abducted her as was put into investigating her parents, there was a chance of a more positive outcome.
There is no doubt that both the PJ and SY have stranger abduction very much at the front of their minds. The surprising thing is that you cannot see that.
-
A fallacious argument. It can be turned around by saying that Madeleine missing and absence of evidence of abduction is evidence implicating her parents and/or their friends. An absence of evidence is not evidence.
Try again. Neither by the Inquisitorial system (that operates in Portugal) nor by the Adversarial system (that operates in England (and elsewhere) is there a presumption of guilt.
There is a presumption of innocence (of anyone known) and even a casual glance at the timeline definitely rules out opportunity for anything nefarious by the parents (or any of their friends).
There is nothing linking the McCanns or their friends to anything nefarious, just as there is nothing linking Kerry Needham or any of her family to anything nefarious with Ben ....
-
Try again. Neither by the Inquisitorial system (that operates in Portugal) nor by the Adversarial system (that operates in England (and elsewhere) is there a presumption of guilt.
There is a presumption of innocence (of anyone known) and even a casual glance at the timeline definitely rules out opportunity for anything nefarious by the parents (or any of their friends).
There is nothing linking the McCanns or their friends to anything nefarious, just as there is nothing linking Kerry Needham or any of her family to anything nefarious with Ben ....
That's the point. There just wasn't the time or the opportunity for The McCanns to have done that which they have been accused of.
-
Quite, a door was unlocked ... and that was going to be reported to the police.
So why go to the hassle of 'simulation'?
Or why bother with such an amateur 'simulation'?
They are intelligent people, surely they were capable of preparing a far more convincing 'simulation' than that one?
I for one get quite distressed when the realisation of the amount of time wasted in looking for this little girl is highlighted by the continuing search for her being conducted by the Policia Judicairia and Scotland Yard eight years after the event.
If as much effort had been expended at the time in looking for the person who abducted her as was put into investigating her parents, there was a chance of a more positive outcome.
There is no doubt that both the PJ and SY have stranger abduction very much at the front of their minds. The surprising thing is that you cannot see that.
Madeleine was extensively searched for at the time of her disappearance and for a period afterwards.
No trace of what happened to her was found, and that remains the case.
-
Madeleine was extensively searched for at the time of her disappearance and for a period afterwards.
No trace of what happened to her was found, and that remains the case.
You have hit the nail on the head. Madeleine was extensively searched for but unfortunately no trace of her was found in the areas cleared in the searches.
A circumstance which might have led competent investigators to cast the net a little wider.
Instead it seems the search for her was compromised by the investigation turning its suspicions inwards to convenient people who happened to be there ... instead of concentrating on the people who were not ... Madeleine and whoever took her.
-
What I would like to see (and would do myself if I had the time and ability) is to create a 90 minute film showing an aerial view of the OC in graphic form with animated routes showing the comings and goings of each of the Tapas group in real time. It would be a very dull film on the face of it, but I think it would illustrate quite well the opportunities for an abductor to get into the apartment and away again without detection.
-
What I would like to see (and would do myself if I had the time and ability) is to create a 90 minute film showing an aerial view of the OC in graphic form with animated routes showing the comings and goings of each of the Tapas group in real time. It would be a very dull film on the face of it, but I think it would illustrate quite well the opportunities for an abductor to get into the apartment and away again without detection.
Me too, but with the objective of determining whether or not there was an adequate time span, then take it from there.
I wonder if the cops have already done it?
-
Me too, but with the objective of determining whether or not there was an adequate time span, then take it from there.
I wonder if the cops have already done it?
They would be very remiss if they haven't
-
Me too, but with the objective of determining whether or not there was an adequate time span, then take it from there.
I wonder if the cops have already done it?
We know from what they have said re: "a forensic examination of the timeline" that they have identified a window of opportunity, but I'd like to see it graphically represented for myself, or for the purposes of putting to bed once and for all the idea that there was a constant stream of pedestrians coming and going round the apartment. A five minute window graphically represented on a video would I believe give a real sense of how do-able an abduction would have been.
-
We know from what they have said re: "a forensic examination of the timeline" that they have identified a window of opportunity, but I'd like to see it graphically represented for myself, or for the purposes of putting to bed once and for all the idea that there was a constant stream of pedestrians coming and going round the apartment. A five minute window graphically represented on a video would I believe give a real sense of how do-able an abduction would have been.
Which is a start point with the usual caveat you would be given by forensic historians and archaeologists. "Because it is possible for something to have happened does not necessarily mean it did happen".
-
Which is a start point with the usual caveat you would be given by forensic historians and archaeologists. "Because it is possible for something to have happened does not necessarily mean it did happen".
I agree, though I have to point out this is the complete reverse of what you were arguing a few weeks back... 8(0(*
-
I agree, though I have to point out this is the complete reverse of what you were arguing a few weeks back... 8(0(*
I would not be at all surprised.
-
I would not be at all surprised.
Me neither:
"All I have said is "if it can be done it is best to assume it has been done in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary". You disagree with that as a global principle; fair enough" - Alice Purjorick
I nearly made this my sig line but I thought I'd probably be reprimanded. @)(++(*
-
If the checking really was every 5 minutes, then someone had to get up in the middle of the main course each night to conduct a timed check. There is zero evidence that this was the routine.
The evidence is that checks were pre-starters, between starters and mains, and after mains.
Thursday was actually somewhat of an exception due to a sick child, but the swapover in the case still took place after a hurried eating of mains, not in the middle of it.
-
If the checking really was every 5 minutes, then someone had to get up in the middle of the main course each night to conduct a timed check. There is zero evidence that this was the routine.
The evidence is that checks were pre-starters, between starters and mains, and after mains.
Thursday was actually somewhat of an exception due to a sick child, but the swapover in the case still took place after a hurried eating of mains, not in the middle of it.
No one has ever claimed that the checks were every five minutes as far as I'm aware.
-
No one has ever claimed that the checks were every five minutes as far as I'm aware.
O'Brien and Oldfield did claim it was every 15 minutes but we now know that was wrong too.
-
Me neither:
"All I have said is "if it can be done it is best to assume it has been done in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary". You disagree with that as a global principle; fair enough" - Alice Purjorick
I nearly made this my sig line but I thought I'd probably be reprimanded. @)(++(*
I would imagine I believe both in the context in which they were writ 8(>((
-
O'Brien and Oldfield did claim it was every 15 minutes but we now know that was wrong too.
Rachel Oldfield mentioned every 10 minutes ! Others 15 others 20 others 30
For this reason and also that the times given in all their statements for checks by particular people (themselves and others) differ up to 20 minutes it would be "impossible" to chart a timeline that shows a "five minute" window of opportunty
-
Rachel Oldfield mentioned every 10 minutes ! Others 15 others 20 others 30
For this reason and also that the times given in all their statements for checks by particular people (themselves and others) differ up to 20 minutes it would be "impossible" to chart a timeline that shows a "five minute" window of opportunty
...apart from after the event.
-
...apart from after the event.
The sticker book timelines? They are questionable as well. In fact the whole timeline of the night created from 8.30 to 10.30 by dozens of witnesses is questionable, which leaves police without a solid foundation to start from ...there's something to be said for CCTV some times, can cut through so much crimewise
-
You know as much about the Mccanns as you do about any other couple in the news, which means nothing otherwise why did Gerald Mccann complain so bitterly about the way they were portrayed?
Please name one abductor who took similar risks; 5 minute gaps between checks, other people out and about (crecheman, the Moyes, the girl from block 6) three small children in one room, entering the apartment to snatch one.
I think this is where the 5 minute gaps idea originated, but I can't be bothered checking the entire thread.
What is more important is whether they sat there clock-watching (time driven) and said "it's 10.03 so you need to go and check". Or whether they said "nice main meal, I'd better go and check now" (event driven).
Both checks happen to be easy to predict.
However, seeing the T9 (minus 1) start to tuck into mains gives a fair degree of security that no-one will be checking within 5 minutes.
Avoid the pre-starters, avoid the starters (too short), go for the big gap - the mains.
-
I would imagine I believe both in the context in which they were writ 8(>((
As global principles one would have to say they are mutually exclusive. 8(>((
-
I think this is where the 5 minute gaps idea originated, but I can't be bothered checking the entire thread.
What is more important is whether they sat there clock-watching (time driven) and said "it's 10.03 so you need to go and check". Or whether they said "nice main meal, I'd better go and check now" (event driven).
Both checks happen to be easy to predict.
However, seeing the T9 (minus 1) start to tuck into mains gives a fair degree of security that no-one will be checking within 5 minutes.
Avoid the pre-starters, avoid the starters (too short), go for the big gap - the mains.
Perhaps they meant every 5 minutes someone was getting up...but not the same person/couple...still, must have been a crappy get together nightly if people were playing musical chairs all night, must have been a constant case of "as I was saying before you ran off"
-
As global principles one would have to say they are mutually exclusive. 8(>((
That would depend on the definition of "global" upon which one relied in the specific context it had been used:
global
ˈɡləʊb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: global
1.
relating to the whole world; worldwide.
"the downturn in the global economy"
synonyms: worldwide, international, world, intercontinental; universal
"the global economy"
antonyms: national, local
2.
relating to or encompassing the whole of something, or of a group of things.
"give students a global picture of what is involved in the task"
synonyms: comprehensive, overall, general, all-inclusive, all-encompassing, encyclopedic, universal, exhaustive, blanket; More
broad, wide-ranging, far-reaching, extensive, sweeping, cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary
"a global view of the problem"
antonyms: partial, restricted
Computing
operating or applying through the whole of a file, program, etc.
"global searches"
You pays yer money you takes yer pick; you can debate this forever if you like but I am not going to. I am happy to use seeming mutually exclusive arguments as long as I do not use them simultaneously in the same exchange. I don't have a game plan to which I must adhere. I log on then counterpunch to the current posts and see what drops out. I am quite content to put up with all the crap too as it's all part of the fun. I mean it ain't serious is it?
-
If the checking really was every 5 minutes, then someone had to get up in the middle of the main course each night to conduct a timed check. There is zero evidence that this was the routine.
The evidence is that checks were pre-starters, between starters and mains, and after mains.
Thursday was actually somewhat of an exception due to a sick child, but the swapover in the case still took place after a hurried eating of mains, not in the middle of it.
The problem as i see it is that we don't actually have a start time which is set in stone.
The written timelines have everyone seated by 8.45pm.
Dianne and Fiona said they left for the restaurant at 8.45pm in their first statements.
Stephen Carpenter said they all arrived at approximately 8.30pm.
Jane left for the restaurant at 8.30pm and said in her first statement that 'several' of the others were there before her. (later she changed this and said only the McCanns were there before her)
The waiter said they were booked in at 8.30pm each night and it would have been noticed by the staff if they were late.
Jeremy Wilkins was there on the Wednesday evening and said they were all there by 8.30pm that night.
Therefore I wonder why the typewritten timeline was changed to all there at 9pm. Why didn't the waiter notice? Why didn't Stephen Carpenter notice?
The waiter also said that once all were seated he would put two bottles of red, two bottles of white and a bottle of water on the table. He would then take the orders. The mains would be served 20-25 minutes after the orders were taken, meanwhile they would eat the starters.
So the time at which the mains were served depends totally on the time the orders were taken. If 8,50pm, say, then the mains were served at 9.15pm at the latest. If 9pm then they were served at 9.25pm at the latest. Either way it suggests that Russell must have left to check his daughter before 9.25pm at the latest.
-
That would depend on the definition of "global" upon which one relied in the specific context it had been used:
global
ˈɡləʊb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: global
1.
relating to the whole world; worldwide.
"the downturn in the global economy"
synonyms: worldwide, international, world, intercontinental; universal
"the global economy"
antonyms: national, local
2.
relating to or encompassing the whole of something, or of a group of things.
"give students a global picture of what is involved in the task"
synonyms: comprehensive, overall, general, all-inclusive, all-encompassing, encyclopedic, universal, exhaustive, blanket; More
broad, wide-ranging, far-reaching, extensive, sweeping, cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary
"a global view of the problem"
antonyms: partial, restricted
Computing
operating or applying through the whole of a file, program, etc.
"global searches"
You pays yer money you takes yer pick; you can debate this forever if you like but I am not going to. I am happy to use seeming mutually exclusive arguments as long as I do not use them simultaneously in the same exchange. I don't have a game plan to which I must adhere. I log on then counterpunch to the current posts and see what drops out. I am quite content to put up with all the crap too as it's all part of the fun. I mean it ain't serious is it?
As long as you realise that no one can ever take anything you say very seriously then fair enough, but arguing with me just for the sake of it is a bit tiresome IMO.
-
As long as you realise that no one can ever take anything you say very seriously then fair enough, but arguing with me just for the sake of it is a bit tiresome IMO.
It's not encumbent on anyone to realise anything at all especially when borne from a false premise
-
As long as you realise that no one can ever take anything you say very seriously then fair enough, but arguing with me just for the sake of it is a bit tiresome IMO.
Everyone is here arguing for the sake of it so in your opinion it is all tiresome?
-
Everyone is here arguing for the sake of it so in your opinion it is all tiresome?
if you have a valid point to make then debate with others can be constructive and interesting, both to take part in and observe. However, when you challenge someone just for the sake of winding them up then that can be quite tiresome.
-
if you have a valid point to make then debate with others can be constructive and interesting, both to take part in and observe. However, when you challenge someone just for the sake of winding them up then that can be quite tiresome.
People in glass houses etc!
And if anyone is getting bored, you could also go back to the older thread - evidence for abduction....just to cut doubled up rubbish, IE sort wheat from chaffe and keep the wheat if theres any
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.0
-
The problem as i see it is that we don't actually have a start time which is set in stone.
...
This problem may well exist in a time driven abduction scenario.
But in the event driven scenario, it does not. The abductor simply waits until he observes the mains being dished up, knowing that from that point on he has a lot longer than 5 minutes to execute his plan.
The diners (and waiters) could be easily observed, so the simplest plan is to observe them until the window of opportunity begins, then get on with it.
This has the added advantage of giving the longest head start, since the next check is unlikely within 20-30 minutes.
-
This problem may well exist in a time driven abduction scenario.
But in the event driven scenario, it does not. The abductor simply waits until he observes the mains being dished up, knowing that from that point on he has a lot longer than 5 minutes to execute his plan.
The diners (and waiters) could be easily observed, so the simplest plan is to observe them until the window of opportunity begins, then get on with it.
This has the added advantage of giving the longest head start, since the next check is unlikely within 20-30 minutes.
Of course this is IF when Maddie was abducted. There is no independent witnesses of Maddie being alive and well since that afternoon. Only DP who paid that visit, he can't recall what for...so hmmm.
-
Of course this is IF when Maddie was abducted. There is no independent witnesses of Maddie being alive and well since that afternoon. Only DP who paid that visit, he can't recall what for...so hmmm.
I do not subscribe to any single theory, but the thread is about the possibility of abduction, not the alternatives.
With each alternative, I try to get my head round what supports it and what goes against it.
In an abduction scenario, David Payne IS an independent witness that Madeleine was alive in the evening of 3rd May after getting back to 5A. (He is NOT in some other scenarios, but the thread is not about such other scenarios).
So, how to optimise the possibility of abduction? Make it planned, remove the need for the patio door to be left open, and take into account normal human behaviour.
Normal human behaviour is that no one, whilst in the act of eating, checks their watch and interrupts eating to do a check according to a timed schedule. They eat until the food is consumed, then check in a break.
The statements covering this issue all say that is what happened.
Therefore a window of opportunity existed that is significantly longer than 5 minutes. It is the time it takes to eat a main course.
It is a possibility that cannot be dismissed. But it does not mean that things happened this way.
-
I do not subscribe to any single theory, but the thread is about the possibility of abduction, not the alternatives.
With each alternative, I try to get my head round what supports it and what goes against it.
In an abduction scenario, David Payne IS an independent witness that Madeleine was alive in the evening of 3rd May after getting back to 5A. (He is NOT in some other scenarios, but the thread is not about such other scenarios).
So, how to optimise the possibility of abduction? Make it planned, remove the need for the patio door to be left open, and take into account normal human behaviour.
Normal human behaviour is that no one, whilst in the act of eating, checks their watch and interrupts eating to do a check according to a timed schedule. They eat until the food is consumed, then check in a break.
The statements covering this issue all say that is what happened.
Therefore a window of opportunity existed that is significantly longer than 5 minutes. It is the time it takes to eat a main course.
It is a possibility that cannot be dismissed. But it does not mean that things happened this way.
Kate was going to check at 9.30 so main course hadn't arrived at that stage?
JT bolted down her main course to relieve ROB from poorly child duties, so main course after 9.30?
That effectively rules Tannerman out of the equation as the abductor in the main course window of opportunity.
-
Please correct me on any timings that I may have wrong. To serve 9 people would take a bit of time, so serving probably started somewhere between 9.20pm and 9.30pm?
Notice how nobody sees or hears anything.........Music from the restaurant?
20.30 Mccanns go to dinner ***
Russ and Jane go to dinner
20.45-50 The Paynes go to dinner
20.50-55 Matt goes to check and passes the paynes
Diane didnt see him.
21.00 Matt returns to dinner
21.00 gerry does a check and leaves after going to the bathroom. ***(I would select this time space. 21.00-21.15 If they were using the front door or window, they could have seen Gerry leave, if watching from up the road
not knowing that he would stop and talk. It seems nobody even saw JT go up the road, so would they see an abductor?)
21.10 Gerry stops and talks to Jez ***
They didnt see JT
21.15 JT goes to check and sees crθche man ***
Gerry and Jez see neither of them
21.20 -22.00 Moyes are on their balcony overlooking tapas and McCanns garden
They see nothing of anyone.
Warrington Guardian
Couple search for missing Madeleine
Sunday, 6 May 2007
By Staff reporter
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post136742.html#p136742
The People
21.25 Matt and Russ go on a check
Russ stays behind with sick child
21.30 Matt returns
21.30 Gerry does another check ? ***
So main course was served around here
21.40 JT goes to relieve Russ who is caring for a child.
21.45ish Russ returns to dinner ***
The Carpenters leave somewhere around this time gap, 9.30-10pm, because they didnt see Jez and Gerry talking or anyone else
..
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. Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home,
................................................
Everyone was seated APPROX 8..30 possibly wrong by 15-20 minutes or so?
If he left after the group had done several checks possibly 9.30 or later?
Sounds like he is out by 15-30minutes. Which is understandable, when on holiday.
22.00 Kate check and alarm
-
Did anyone watch the documentary "The Murder Detectives"? many interesting aspects to this series, not least the fact that despite getting their man, there was no forensic evidence at all linking him to the scene of the crime, despite the fact that CCTV clearly showed him opening an internal door with an ungloved hand.
-
Did anyone watch the documentary "The Murder Detectives"? many interesting aspects to this series, not least the fact that despite getting their man, there was no forensic evidence at all linking him to the scene of the crime, despite the fact that CCTV clearly showed him opening an internal door with an ungloved hand.
Must mean madeleine was abducted...
-
Also interesting and was the sight of the murder victim's mother singing, dancing and smiling at the victim's graveside moments after his coffin had been lowered into the ground.
-
Wasnt a suspect though so behaviour didnt matter
Also her son wasn't missing, suspected to be the plaything of some paedophile.
-
Also her son wasn't missing, suspected to be the plaything of some paedophile.
I know, its just in the same vein as always of lnking every child abuse case, every child abduction whatever age, and from anywhere, every child ever
found umpteen years later, even by parental abduction, any gipsy child with blonde hair, every other missing person crime to Madeleines case, anyne nnidently looking towards thr mccanns flat that day or weeks and nonths earlier, even linking men whilst actually in prison at the time and who targetted boys only....ie there is no one who ISNT a suspect....its beyond ridiculous...so who exactly hndered the search??? These idiots?
-
Sometimes the stench of desperation is overwhelming!
Night Mercury.
I know
certainly doesnt bode well for a slam dunk abduction police case, whatever country it happened in or who investigated it, night FL
-
...here is an interesting case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251601/Dieter-Pfennig-confessed-killing-10-year-old-Louise-Bell-disappeared-bedroom-Adelaide-32-years-ago.html
It shows us that a child can be stolen from her bedroom whilst asleep and with a sibling in situ. This child was 10 years old so much bigger than Madeleine.
Not only that, but the parents were in the building at the time and the father had checked on the children several times during the night which shows that if an abductor is determined enough he will find a way to take what he wants regardless of the risks or obstacles.
It also demonstrates how some missing kids cases can take 30+ years to be solved.
31
Maybe the question should change...why do those who believe in an abduction feel the need to demonise those who dont or arent sure....and going to extreme and pathetic lengths to do so, floors all yours and your ilk
maybe kate mccann who runs the website and facebook etc should do something about it all hey? after all those sites support sites that demonise amaral and "doubters"...is she the architect and manager of her own hate campaign gone wrong? Surely not
-
Also her son wasn't missing, suspected to be the plaything of some paedophile.
The issue is one of appropriate reactions to grief. You believe a fleeting smile by the McCanns is inappropriate behaviour because their child is missing, but seem quite prepared to excuse a mother who sings, dances and smiles moments after burying her only child, a child brutally murdered by persons unknown. This is an inconsistent position for you to hold IMO.
-
Please correct me on any timings that I may have wrong. To serve 9 people would take a bit of time, so serving probably started somewhere between 9.20pm and 9.30pm?
Notice how nobody sees or hears anything.........Music from the restaurant?
20.30 Mccanns go to dinner ***
Russ and Jane go to dinner
20.45-50 The Paynes go to dinner
20.50-55 Matt goes to check and passes the paynes
Diane didnt see him.
21.00 Matt returns to dinner
21.00 gerry does a check and leaves after going to the bathroom. ***(I would select this time space. 21.00-21.15 If they were using the front door or window, they could have seen Gerry leave, if watching from up the road
not knowing that he would stop and talk. It seems nobody even saw JT go up the road, so would they see an abductor?)
21.10 Gerry stops and talks to Jez ***
They didnt see JT
21.15 JT goes to check and sees crθche man ***
Gerry and Jez see neither of them
21.20 -22.00 Moyes are on their balcony overlooking tapas and McCanns garden
They see nothing of anyone.
Warrington Guardian
Couple search for missing Madeleine
Sunday, 6 May 2007
By Staff reporter
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post136742.html#p136742
The People
21.25 Matt and Russ go on a check
Russ stays behind with sick child
21.30 Matt returns
21.30 Gerry does another check ? ***
So main course was served around here
21.40 JT goes to relieve Russ who is caring for a child.
21.45ish Russ returns to dinner ***
The Carpenters leave somewhere around this time gap, 9.30-10pm, because they didnt see Jez and Gerry talking or anyone else
..
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. Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home,
................................................
Everyone was seated APPROX 8..30 possibly wrong by 15-20 minutes or so?
If he left after the group had done several checks possibly 9.30 or later?
Sounds like he is out by 15-30minutes. Which is understandable, when on holiday.
22.00 Kate check and alarm
Or the tapas group are out by the same amount of time for the same reason?
-
Maybe the question should change...why do those who believe in an abduction feel the need to demonise those who dont or arent sure....and going to extreme and pathetic lengths to do so, floors all yours and your ilk
maybe kate mccann who runs the website and facebook etc should do something about it all hey? after all those sites support sites that demonise amaral and "doubters"...is she the architect and manager of her own hate campaign gone wrong? Surely not
How can you say that people who believe there was an abduction DEMONISE Amaral and the doubters? This is a debate forum, of course anyone who believes the abduction, faced with posters who use ridiculous reasons why they think the McCann's are guilty such as smiling, jogging etc. will be given an alternative view as why we think that their ideas are ridiculous.
-
Also her son wasn't missing, suspected to be the plaything of some paedophile.
Strange isn't it Kate McCann's description in her book , portrayed how images flooded her mind of Madeleine with a paedophile, the horror of it something which she couldn't stop her mind from going through, how she felt like tearing her skin off, outraged some, how could she talk about her child like that, when she was giving an insight of how she felt at the time and how the images were torturing her. Now you are saying that the McCann's were blasι about Madeleine being with a paedophile. You really have no idea.
-
Strange isn't it Kate McCann's description in her book , portrayed how images flooded her mind of Madeleine with a paedophile, the horror of it something which she couldn't stop her mind from going through, how she felt like tearing her skin off, outraged some, how could she talk about her child like that, when she was giving an insight of how she felt at the time and how the images were torturing her. Now you are saying that the McCann's were blasι about Madeleine being with a paedophile. You really have no idea.
I agree and I find it strange that at this remove of nearly nine years there are those posters who feel compelled to put into words what may have happened to Madeleine. In my opinion misguided to say the least.
-
Strange she didn't get her ass straight in that car park and start looking for her and used her phone to tell Gerry. Oh wait they were saying they didn't take their phones. Anyone who believes that crap needs their heads examining. The point of a mobile is to have it on you at all times in case there is an emergency.
"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Dianne retrieved their camera from the table. I hope SY interrogate these jokers. It's about time.
-
Strange she didn't get her ass straight in that car park and start looking for her and used her phone to tell Gerry. Oh wait they were saying they didn't take their phones. Anyone who believes that crap needs their heads examining. The point of a mobile is to have it on you at all times in case there is an emergency.
"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Dianne retrieved their camera from the table. I hope SY interrogate these jokers. It's about time.
Kate McCann was in a state of complete panic, she ran screaming down to Gerry, taking her phone out and ringing him probably didn't enter her mind.
-
Kate McCann was in a state of complete panic, she ran screaming down to Gerry, taking her phone out and ringing him probably didn't enter her mind.
Finding Madeleine is your first thought because she could be in the car park with a window open as she claimed not running in the opposite direction back to Gerry.
-
Finding Madeleine is your first thought because she could be in the car park with a window open as she claimed not running in the opposite direction back to Gerry.
Kate looked out of the window she said so. Panicking and running back to Gerry is in my mind not unusual.
-
Kate McCann was in a state of complete panic, she ran screaming down to Gerry, taking her phone out and ringing him probably didn't enter her mind.
Ran screaming?
-
Ran screaming?
Yes, was screaming that Madeleine was missing.
-
Kate looked out of the window she said so. Panicking and running back to Gerry is in my mind not unusual.
Find a statement before the files were released (revealing her fingerprints) saying that she looked out through the window i.e. in 2007?
-
Find a statement before the files were released (revealing her fingerprints) saying that she looked out through the window i.e. in 2007?
Judicial Secrecy?
-
Judicial Secrecy?
She gave statements to the police. I can't see checking the car park by looking though the window. And when she was arguido she refused to answer these questions.
-
She gave statements to the police. I can't see checking the car park by looking though the window. And when she was arguido she refused to answer these questions.
She did refuse
BUT the first inkling we had that she opened the window and looked out was in Mr Amarals documentary...whether that was fact from unrecorded interviews or artistic licence I have no idea
-
She did refuse
BUT the first inkling we had that she opened the window and looked out was in Mr Amarals documentary...whether that was fact from unrecorded interviews or artistic licence I have no idea
Finger prints.
-
Finger prints.
Well they would be on the window if she opened it to look out....?
-
She gave statements to the police. I can't see checking the car park by looking though the window. And when she was arguido she refused to answer these questions.
Quite. Dr McCann was interviewed and gave statements to the police. Which she was bound by the Portuguese law of Judicial Secrecy not to disclose.
Are you really suggesting that the PJ did not ask Dr McCann any of these questions between the beginning of May 2007 until September 2007 when she was made an arguida? ... Really??
If so you are accusing them of far greater ineptitude than I have ever claimed for them.
-
Well they would be on the window if she opened it to look out....?
If she opened it then yes two fingers could be on it. You don't lean out of an already open window using only two fingers and that is not in her statement.
-
If she opened it then yes two fingers could be on it. You don't lean out of an already open window using only two fingers and that is not in her statement.
We've done all this ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6209.msg242491#msg242491 ... you should read up on it. It is a very informative thread.
-
If she opened it then yes two fingers could be on it. You don't lean out of an already open window using only two fingers and that is not in her statement.
Sorry PF, of course, the window was "already open"...duh at myself, ignore....but still, if it was open and she looked out who is to say how she looked out and which part of the window she touched and with how many fingers?
More important Imo is that no other fingerprints or glove prints were found or any damage at all to the window, so how was it opened by a stranger?
-
Sorry PF, of course, the window was "already open"...duh at myself, ignore....but still, if it was open and she looked out who is to say how she looked out and which part of the window she touched and with how many fingers?
More important Imo is that no other fingerprints or glove prints were found or any damage at all to the window, so how was it opened by a stranger?
because the PJ forensics did such a poor job they missed them
-
Yes, was screaming that Madeleine was missing.
Yes, that is the quote I found. Slightly different than generally screaming.
-
Yes, that is the quote I found. Slightly different than generally screaming.
if she was screaming Madeleine was missing then she was...by definition...screaming
-
if she was screaming Madeleine was missing then she was...by definition...screaming
Try again.
-
Try again.
if she was screaming Madeleine was missing then she was...by definition...screaming
-
if she was screaming Madeleine was missing then she was...by definition...screaming
If you can't tell the difference between Lace's original comment and her revised one then maybe you have misled us over your vaunted intelligence.
-
If you can't tell the difference between Lace's original comment and her revised one then maybe you have misled us over your vaunted intelligence.
that is a personal attack rather than a criticism of my post...everything I have said re my education is true and I think most realise that from my posts...perhaps you want to join Stephen and infer that I am lying...plus...you are taking the thread off topic
-
If you can't tell the difference between Lace's original comment and her revised one then maybe you have misled us over your vaunted intelligence.
What really is the difference between running screaming, and running screaming that Madeleineis missing, in essence?
-
that is a personal attack rather than a criticism of my post...everything I have said re my education is true and I think most realise that from my posts...perhaps you want to join Stephen and infer that I am lying...plus...you are taking the thread off topic
I commented on Lace's original post which she correct and you then tried to defend the original post. Not a sensible approach.
-
I commented on Lace's original post which she correct and you then tried to defend the original post. Not a sensible approach.
What correction did Lace make?
-
I commented on Lace's original post which she correct and you then tried to defend the original post. Not a sensible approach.
you are making a personal attack against me
-
What really is the difference between running screaming, and running screaming that Madeleineis missing, in essence?
Screaming is to give a long, loud, piercing cry or cries expressing extreme emotion or pain.
Screaming a phrase or word is to shout something in a loud, high voice because of fear, anger, etc.
-
Yes, that is the quote I found. Slightly different than generally screaming.
Semantics.
If she was described as "screaming" for her daughter ... then she was indeed screaming according to the dictionary definition.
scream verb (MAKE NOISE)
B1 [I or T] to cry or say something loudly and usually on a high note, especially because of strong emotions such as fear, excitement, or anger:
A spider landed on her pillow and she screamed.
Through the smoke, the rescuers could hear people screaming for help.
Ken screamed (out) a warning telling people to get out of the way.
I've never found screaming (and shouting) (= shouting angrily) at my staff to be very effective.
[+ speech] "I wish you were dead!" she screamed (= shouted angrily).
I tried to apologize, but he just screamed abuse/obscenities at me.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scream
-
you are making a personal attack against me
No, just pointing out the error in your argument.
-
Screaming is to give a long, loud, piercing cry or cries expressing extreme emotion or pain.
Screaming a phrase or word is to shout something in a loud, high voice because of fear, anger, etc.
And ths minor quibble matters why, exactly?
-
And ths minor quibble matters why, exactly?
It prevents myths.
-
No, just pointing out the error in your argument.
You really should show more discernment in the arguments you decide to pick.
-
It prevents myths.
What myth?
-
Screaming is to give a long, loud, piercing cry or cries expressing extreme emotion or pain.
Screaming a phrase or word is to shout something in a loud, high voice because of fear, anger, etc.
semantics and she could well have done both
-
If you can't tell the difference between Lace's original comment and her revised one then maybe you have misled us over your vaunted intelligence.
Unwarranted personal attack. Davel's post was quite right.
"if she was screaming Madeleine was missing then she was...by definition...screaming"
-
No, just pointing out the error in your argument.
no you were not......you questioned whether I had misled posters
-
because the PJ forensics did such a poor job they missed them
This is a personal and biased opinion presented as a fact ...with no cite posted to support the argument that there were fingerprints of a stranger on the kids' bedroom window ....that is called creating myths, which serve no one on this forum and is also against forum rules...
-
This is a personal and biased opinion presented as a fact ...with no cite posted to support the argument that there were fingerprints of a stranger on the kids' bedroom window ....that is called creating myths, which serve no one on this forum and is also against forum rules...
it's a possibility
-
it's a possibility
Quite so - especially in view of the following observation by Amaral
Quote from his book:
Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palmar prints, a job that is preferably carried out during daylight hours. Others look for traces of blood, samples of fibres and hair. We notice with dismay that one of the technicians, who is working on the outside of the McCann children's bedroom window is not using the regulation suit, thus risking contaminating possible clues.
unquote
-
it's a possibility
Go and reread your post. You stated the PJ did such a terrible job "they missed them"....
That is 1) an assumption there were some there
2) an assumption that a mistake was made right there
3) both presented as fact...and later backtracked to "possibility"
@Benice
Potential contamination is not the same as missing evidence that is there to be found...as it turned out there was no contamination created by the window forensics technician...as there was by at least two of the tapas 9 interfering with the shutters, as if they had some important reason to do so!!
-
Go and reread your post. You stated the PJ did such a terrible job "they missed them"....
That is 1) an assumption there were some there
2) an assumption that a mistake was made right there
3) both presented as fact...and later backtracked to "possibility"
@Benice
Potential contamination is not the same as missing evidence that is there to be found...as it turned out there was no contamination created by the window forensics technician...as there was by at least two of the tapas 9 interfering with the shutters, as if they had some important reason to do so!!
I think the PJ did a pretty awful job all round....
-
I think the PJ did a pretty awful job all round....
Now there's a surprise.
@)(++(*
-
I think the PJ did a pretty awful job all round....
yes, we know that lol! But youve evaded the issues under discussion..no surprise I guess, its a trait of you and your ilk when thngs get difficult, plenty of examples about for all to see
@)(++(*
-
I think the PJ did a pretty awful job all round....
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Whether your opinion is correct or not is another matter.
-
I think the PJ did a pretty awful job all round....
I wouldn't altogether agree with that assessment. I think the investigation was one of honest endeavour, double-crossed and betrayed by awful leadership, and (seriously) misled by input on the British side.
But (apart from a wobbly bit in the middle) I think PJ Inspector Carlos was sound; the GNR dog-handlers outstanding, and groundwork put in by PJ officers generally, methodical and thorough ....
-
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Whether your opinion is correct or not is another matter.
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Whether your opinion is correct or not is another matter.
-
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Whether your opinion is correct or not is another matter.
That was original. 6&%5%
-
That was original. 6&%5%
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Whether your opinion is correct or not is another matter.
-
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Whether your opinion is correct or not is another matter.
%&5%£
-
Parrot, Mynah Bird or echo......... &%+((£
Were it an echo one would not "hear" the whole sentence.
So it's a Parrot or Mynah Bird
-
Parrot, Mynah Bird or echo......... &%+((£
Were it an echo one would not "hear" the whole sentence.
So it's a Parrot or Mynah Bird
I wonder if he's ever watched the dead parrot sketch ? %£5&%
-
Go and reread your post. You stated the PJ did such a terrible job "they missed them"....
That is 1) an assumption there were some there
2) an assumption that a mistake was made right there
3) both presented as fact...and later backtracked to "possibility"
@Benice
Potential contamination is not the same as missing evidence that is there to be found...as it turned out there was no contamination created by the window forensics technician...as there was by at least two of the tapas 9 interfering with the shutters, as if they had some important reason to do so!!
I disagree mercury. No-one can know whether the person taking fingerprints, whilst incorrectly attired for the job, contaminated existing evidence or not. However, we do know that contamination by that person was a possibility - as Amaral himself drew attention to that fact and gave the reason why.
The only thing we can say with any certainty IMO is that because several people (including a wrongly attired Forensic bod) were in contact with the shutters/windows, then existing evidence may or may not have been destroyed or contaminated as a result.
To claim that ..... 'no contamination was created by the Forensic bod' ....as if that was a proven fact is inaccurate IMO as that would imply that 'regulation suits' served no purpose. And obviously that's not the case.
-
I wouldn't altogether agree with that assessment. I think the investigation was one of honest endeavour, double-crossed and betrayed by awful leadership, and (seriously) misled by input on the British side.
But (apart from a wobbly bit in the middle) I think PJ Inspector Carlos was sound; the GNR dog-handlers outstanding, and groundwork put in by PJ officers generally, methodical and thorough ....
Foot soldiers are answerable to and have to follow the direction their leaders decide is the appropriate one to take.
The higher echelons are the ones in possession of all the facts which they join together to decide the next move to make. Mr Amaral's book tells us that in Madeleine McCann's case almost from the beginning the parents were suspects in their daughter's disappearance.
This is illustrated in the interim report of Vitor Tavares de Almeida who himself was convicted of torture in a case which took 13 years from start to finish to prosecute in his testimony on behalf of Mr Amaral's libel defence, who was convicted of perjury in a different torture case.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/pena-suspensa-para-dupla-da-pj-condenada-por-tortura.html
The man who alleges dreams as evidence of guilt and who is stupid enough to exposes himself on the internet http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/03/mccann-affair-pj-inspector-caught-in.html ~ Ricardo Paiva also testified at Mr Amaral's libel trial that the Drs McCann were suspects right from the beginning.
What a team!
The GNR and PJ working on Madeleine's case might all individually have possessed the combined skills of a Poirot or a Sherlock Holmes ... it would not have mattered.
They may have been trying to follow the evidence but leadership had already decided right from the beginning of the case that the parents dunnit ... so quite obviously the abduction theory was not followed and only evidence which might have pointed to Madeleine's parents' guilt considered.
Mr Amaral is on record as saying Madeleine had been let down because of the failure to access CCTV footage ... I think that was the least of it.
-
Never mind two new teams have been working on it now for six "team years".
I am sure it will all be unraveled soon, or not as the case may be.
-
Never mind two new teams have been working on it now for six "team years".
I am sure it will all be unraveled soon, or not as the case may be.
I would have imagined that Simon Cowell has state of the art security in place to protect his residence and his family but it looks like either he forgot to set it properly when he went to bed or intruders had a way of breaching it.
Wonder if they 'jemmied' it.
I'll be surprised if they left any forensics behind apart from the money and jewels they came for being conspicuous by their absence.
Cowell's £35m Home Burgled 'While He Slept'
Police say they are investigating the break-in which happened in the early hours when the pop mogul and his family were sleeping.
http://news.sky.com/story/1600287/cowells-35m-home-burgled-while-he-slept
-
I would have imagined that Simon Cowell has state of the art security in place to protect his residence and his family but it looks like either he forgot to set it properly when he went to bed or intruders had a way of breaching it.
Wonder if they 'jemmied' it.
I'll be surprised if they left any forensics behind apart from the money and jewels they came for being conspicuous by their absence.
Cowell's £35m Home Burgled 'While He Slept'
Police say they are investigating the break-in which happened in the early hours when the pop mogul and his family were sleeping.
http://news.sky.com/story/1600287/cowells-35m-home-burgled-while-he-slept
i non puncto intelligere
-
I disagree mercury. No-one can know whether the person taking fingerprints, whilst incorrectly attired for the job, contaminated existing evidence or not. However, we do know that contamination by that person was a possibility - as Amaral himself drew attention to that fact and gave the reason why.
The only thing we can say with any certainty IMO is that because several people (including a wrongly attired Forensic bod) were in contact with the shutters/windows, then existing evidence may or may not have been destroyed or contaminated as a result.
To claim that ..... 'no contamination was created by the Forensic bod' ....as if that was a proven fact is inaccurate IMO as that would imply that 'regulation suits' served no purpose. And obviously that's not the case.
The fact that Amaral bore witness to elements of the investigation which could have been better does not mean what could have gone wrong did go wrong and in any way that harmed the investigation. Where there was contamnation the police files described it, that being the main reason I said there was no window contamnation by PJ officers/technicians. The point I was originally making was that Davel had said there were fingerprints of a stranger on the window and that the pj "missed them" ....not a fact or even a suggestion or any evidence it was possible...and your confusing not seeing evidence that was there ie fingerprints with possible contamination...ie by a single hair for example, thats it......