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: Wonderfulspam on October 02, 2014, 03:18:50 PM
Title: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 02, 2014, 03:18:50 PM
Doesn't seem to be much searching going on does there.
Where, if at all, have Kate & Gerry been searching recently, anyone know?
(http://i.imgur.com/QfFfJ4p.jpg?2)
2384
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on October 02, 2014, 03:55:30 PM
I made it clear that both feet and heads were used.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things and miss things out?
Couldn't agree more Sadie....no good Kate and Gerry wandering round Portugal...what a stupid idea...best to get the professionals on the job and that's what they have managed to achieve now.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 02, 2014, 05:24:09 PM
I know exactly why they went jogging and played tennis...makes perfect sense to me. The problem is that most of the public just don't understand how other people, particularly doctors, think......they then draw all the wrong conclusions...as you are doing
Are you suggesting they are wired up differently from the rest of us? How does that happen then?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 02, 2014, 05:25:01 PM
They spent May 4th in interviews with the police and I think it was some time before they were capable of doing much else.
Also running is cathartic ... you can run and clear your mind of all thought for a little while which is probably a useful thing to do when you have to get on with life without your daughter.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: DCI on October 02, 2014, 05:29:28 PM
They spent May 4th in interviews with the police and I think it was some time before they were capable of doing much else.
Also running is cathartic ... you can run and clear your mind of all thought for a little while which is probably a useful thing to do when you have to get on with life without your daughter.
Well Amaral said they did, so it must be true *&*%£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on October 02, 2014, 06:10:06 PM
If my three-year-old daughter had disappeared that night the last thing I would be doing is jogging around the bloody village with photographers in tow. Seriously folks wtf?
So what actual searching was there?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 02, 2014, 07:42:47 PM
If my three-year-old daughter had disappeared that night the last thing I would be doing is jogging around the bloody village with photographers in tow. Seriously folks wtf?
So what actual searching was there?
As you are a policeman that's not surprising...what would you do if she had a heart attack...carry out angioplasty...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 05, 2014, 09:45:30 PM
I don't understand what you think the McCanns did wrongly. The group quickly checked around to see if she really was missing and sent someone to call the police. Whether it was Reception or the GNR who lacked understanding of the urgency of the situation is history now - it can't be changed.
It doesn't seem to matter in Portugal if you contact the police or not, they don't do very much, if anything.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 05, 2014, 09:47:01 PM
They didn't search and they shouldn't have to because they KNEW she had been taken! so shouting 'Maddie has been abducted' WOULD HAVE GOT a real fast response!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 05, 2014, 10:36:33 PM
They didn't search and they shouldn't have to because they KNEW she had been taken! so shouting 'Maddie has been abducted' WOULD HAVE GOT a real fast response!
They didn't search? Pardon me, but where did you get that information? They did cry "abduction" but it didn't produce much of a response from the police, did it? 20 officers max. that night, none of whom spoke English or had a clue what was really happening. Perhaps you'd rather they'd assumed responsibility for searching all night themselves before contacting the Embassy first thing in the morning requesting assistance.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 05, 2014, 10:44:41 PM
They didn't search? Pardon me, but where did you get that information? They did cry "abduction" but it didn't produce much of a response from the police, did it? 20 officers max. that night, none of whom spoke English or had a clue what was really happening. Perhaps you'd rather they'd assumed responsibility for searching all night themselves before contacting the Embassy first thing in the morning requesting assistance.
They didn't ring them, or bother to try.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on October 05, 2014, 10:54:25 PM
It would be a priority though to contact the police as would searching. If they were searching whilst the delay was going on seems credible to me... I don't know the case as well as you experts so what were they doing during this time?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 06, 2014, 03:37:28 PM
The non-police and police searches were less than complete even before they got to outside JIMO but then that happens in lots of cases
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 16, 2014, 01:30:43 PM
Searching. Kate = #1.
The 4 men from the Tapas 9 outside 5A = #2.
The 'structured' search by the Ocean Club = #3.
The GNR dog searches early on the morning of 4 May = #4.
If Kate's book is accurate, the search by Gerry and Kate around dawn on 4 May = #5.
The general searches by the GNR and population of Luz, scouring Luz, lasting approximately a week, shall we call that #6?
The specialist dogs of the GNR that searched on late 4 May and late 5 May. #7?
After that, I get into "dogs of death" and Scotland Yard conducting fingertip searches of Luz. Those, I can understand how and where they searched, what they found or not etc.
Does anyone have solid evidence of what happened in the searches I have labelled #1 to #7? Just asking. 8()-000(
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on October 21, 2014, 12:35:34 AM
Its a pity a proper search of the underground pipe network wasn't carried out at the time. Too much focus on an unevidenced abduction and not enough on misadventure imo.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Montclair on October 21, 2014, 11:11:49 AM
Kate might not have searched much but she certainly started to sleep well, after about 5 days!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on October 21, 2014, 11:18:12 AM
Kate might not have searched much but she certainly started to sleep well, after about 5 days!
Probably all that running and tennis .
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 21, 2014, 02:12:34 PM
We know searches were carried out; I think the issue may be how effective they were.
For example we do not know how well coordinated they were and exactly who was searching where.
We do know the dumpsters were allowed to be emptied and we know potential evidence was overlooked … as in the case of the cigarette ends on the balcony.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 21, 2014, 05:21:29 PM
Its a pity a proper search of the underground pipe network wasn't carried out at the time. Too much focus on an unevidenced abduction and not enough on misadventure imo.
Yes John, I agree. I am also uneasy about Kate and Gerry bad mouthing the police so early on, that must have cause a lot of animosity. Where were the police to look for an abducted child? I can understand panic and all that, but this was sureal to be honest. The Needham family still walk about looking for their son- the McCanns never bothered when they were thereOR when they went to Portugal-they were too busy suing someone.
They lost my respect when they began the celebrity thing- meeting the pope etc.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Montclair on October 21, 2014, 05:48:34 PM
Also, when the McCann's relatives came out in droves to Praia da Luz, they didn't do any searching. People were shocked to see them all lounging around the pool area as if they were on a free vacation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 21, 2014, 05:52:26 PM
Yes John, I agree. I am also uneasy about Kate and Gerry bad mouthing the police so early on, that must have cause a lot of animosity. Where were the police to look for an abducted child? I can understand panic and all that, but this was sureal to be honest. The Needham family still walk about looking for their son- the McCanns never bothered when they were thereOR when they went to Portugal-they were too busy suing someone.
They lost my respect when they began the celebrity thing- meeting the pope etc.
Kate has been back to PdL several times since 2007 - how does anyone know what she did on those occasions.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on October 21, 2014, 05:56:06 PM
Also, when the McCann's relatives came out in droves to Praia da Luz, they didn't do any searching. People were shocked to see them all lounging around the pool area as if they were on a free vacation.
Which, in a sense they probably were. A little bit of light driving, perhaps
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 21, 2014, 06:08:34 PM
[ quote removed as off topic ]
Kate and Gerry did not search when they were in Portugal we would have known about it -they would have told the press. Encouraged friends and family to go over to organize search areas.
They left Portugal(couldn't get away fast enough) and Maddie behind-tried to get on with their lives- leaving a bewildered Populace behind-and a filthy taste of badness about their police and their country.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Montclair on October 22, 2014, 03:53:52 PM
You mean raise money so that OTHERS may do the searching - like when they go on holiday
Hmmm ... any ideas how they should go about physically searching themselves?
We have seen how quickly the Met who are in cooperation with the PJ have been able to progress with their search in PDL. There are very many formalities and legalities to go through before anyone can embark on any sort of search, even a law enforcement agency.
Again ... how exactly do you think the Drs McCann should be conducting the search for their daughter? and how much help do you suppose they would get from the graffiti artists of PDL to assist them?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2014, 07:40:28 PM
Does anyone believe that had the McCcanns searched Maddie would have been found
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 22, 2014, 07:46:05 PM
Does anyone believe that had the McCcanns searched Maddie would have been found
Given that "probably the best police force in the world" have come up with sweet Felicity Arkwright in 3+ years probably not, but maybe that isnae the point ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2014, 08:00:19 PM
Given that "probably the best police force in the world" have come up with sweet Felicity Arkwright in 3+ years probably not, but maybe that isnae the point ?
at least a decent police force are investigating now
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on October 22, 2014, 08:11:50 PM
Do you think they will ever find the guilty party ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 22, 2014, 08:20:48 PM
Does anyone believe that had the McCcanns searched Maddie would have been found
How could they search. when it was dark and there was a shortage of flashlights, which were used by those familiar with area. They could only search lit areas and what could they do, that wasn't already being done? They were in a very distressed state and would only hinder other searchers, IMO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on October 23, 2014, 04:04:40 PM
your child is missing. Seems well strange not too search. I would literally be breaking down doors. As does popping off to see the pope and leaving your 2 young ones behind after your daughter has disappeared. Appears very strange to me but not everyone is the same in fairness... I find it strange without being in the situation yourself to claim otherwise... You guys ever lost your child for a few seconds/minutes? What do you do? Ring home?? Don't think so...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 23, 2014, 04:14:43 PM
your child is missing. Seems well strange not too search. I would literally be breaking down doors. As does popping off to see the pope and leaving your 2 young ones behind after your daughter has disappeared. Appears very strange to me but not everyone is the same in fairness... I find it strange without being in the situation yourself to claim otherwise... You guys ever lost your child for a few seconds/minutes? What do you do? Ring home?? Don't think so...
As it happens, breaking down doors of what could be innocent people, is against the law. Try it and you could well find yourself locked up.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on October 23, 2014, 04:15:50 PM
Of course but you think I would care about that if I have a missing child? Least of my concerns...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Anna on October 23, 2014, 04:16:05 PM
your child is missing. Seems well strange not too search. I would literally be breaking down doors. As does popping off to see the pope and leaving your 2 young ones behind after your daughter has disappeared. Appears very strange to me but not everyone is the same in fairness... I find it strange without being in the situation yourself to claim otherwise... You guys ever lost your child for a few seconds/minutes? What do you do? Ring home?? Don't think so...
Yes I have and my hubby ran around the block while I searched the garden where I had left her playing and then we called the police, who found her under a sofa in the summerhouse fast asleep. I was crying and angry at the same time, but oh so happy that she was safe. I felt embarassed at having called in a search party.............because I didnt look properly in the garden area. She was about 5yrs. I might add that my garden is large and where I was in the house(upstairs study) was probably as far away as McCanns were in Tapas restaurant.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on October 23, 2014, 04:18:01 PM
Ok but with the important caveat that it's your house and grounds... Pyschologically and practically quite different if the garden is secure...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 23, 2014, 04:21:49 PM
your child is missing. Seems well strange not too search. I would literally be breaking down doors. As does popping off to see the pope and leaving your 2 young ones behind after your daughter has disappeared. Appears very strange to me but not everyone is the same in fairness... I find it strange without being in the situation yourself to claim otherwise... You guys ever lost your child for a few seconds/minutes? What do you do? Ring home?? Don't think so...
If you really believe the first thing the McCanns did when they found Madeleine missing was to ring home - then you really do need to read the files.
Incidentally, there are no reports of April Jones mum going out to search. I presume she took the advice of the police and stayed at home - or maybe she was simply too traumatised. And neither did Sandy Richardson's mother - when her son was abducted from his grandparents back garden in Scotland. She said she was too frightened of what she might find. Do you find those parents behaviour 'strange' too?
There is no right way or wrong way to react imo.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Anna on October 23, 2014, 04:23:37 PM
Ok but with the important caveat that it's your house and grounds... Pyschologically and practically quite different if the garden is secure...
Yes the garden is secure, but we found the side gate unbolted. Which would have been forgotten by one of us or the older children.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on October 23, 2014, 04:29:11 PM
Ok. I have read some of the files and I know they didn't call home till much later and yes there may be some variance in regard to peoples reactions in extreme situations. What I'm actually trying to drive at is I think their behaviour as a whole is odd and not what one would expect. Whether this is purely a false distorted perception created through the media or is real is difficult to tell. Still we are discussing this case and to comment on their behaviour in many scenarios so far seems appropriate...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 23, 2014, 04:31:17 PM
If you really believe the first thing the McCanns did when they found Madeleine missing was to ring home - then you really do need to read the files.
Incidentally, there are no reports of April Jones mum going out to search. I presume she took the advice of the police and stayed at home - or maybe she was simply too traumatised. And neither did Sandy Richardson's mother - when her son was abducted from his grandparents back garden in Scotland. She said she was too frightened of what she might find. Do you find those parents behaviour 'strange' too?
There is no right way or wrong way to react imo.
Call the police, perhaps.....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on October 23, 2014, 04:31:41 PM
The gate was unbolted sure, but psychologically you are within the confines of what I assume you regard as your haven. The two scenarios, your house and an unlocked apartment within a resort with free access to the general public seems very different to me....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on October 23, 2014, 04:40:27 PM
On a related topic I don't know if you have seen gone girl but I thought they conveyed the way the media shapes public perception in cases like this very well.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 23, 2014, 05:13:22 PM
Of course but you think I would care about that if I have a missing child? Least of my concerns...
Strange … you think that breaking down a door, causing fear and alarm to those inside would progress the search for a missing child? The police can’t do it without either a warrant or just cause, why do you think it acceptable a vigilante should?
I should also point out ... it would be difficult to search for anyone from a prison cell.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 23, 2014, 05:16:20 PM
On a related topic I don't know if you have seen gone girl but I thought they conveyed the way the media shapes public perception in cases like this very well.
I've seen it now. I loved the way they portrayed the TV Criminal profiler, it made me think of Pat Brown. I wonder what she thinks? @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 23, 2014, 05:17:51 PM
Strange … you think that breaking down a door, causing fear and alarm to those inside would progress the search for a missing child? The police can’t do it without either a warrant or just cause, why do you think it acceptable a vigilante should?
I should also point it ... it would be difficult to search for anyone from a prison cell.
I can't think of any examples of mothers / fathers of high profile missing persons breaking down doors, can you?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 23, 2014, 05:20:58 PM
Ok. I have read some of the files and I know they didn't call home till much later and yes there may be some variance in regard to peoples reactions in extreme situations. What I'm actually trying to drive at is I think their behaviour as a whole is odd and not what one would expect. Whether this is purely a false distorted perception created through the media or is real is difficult to tell. Still we are discussing this case and to comment on their behaviour in many scenarios so far seems appropriate...
Good Lord ... is there a manual they should have read on how they should modify their behaviour to suit the casual observer when their much loved daughter was abducted?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 23, 2014, 05:40:29 PM
I can't think of any examples of mothers / fathers of high profile missing persons breaking down doors, can you?
I'm not even sure I have ever heard of the parents taking part in the searches once it has been established a child is missing. In fact, I believe it is discouraged.
There are good reasons for that; one of which is, there may be parental involvement and s/he may take the opportunity to interfere with or contaminate evidence.
Another involves the crime scene; should a parent find the body of a child s/he may ruin DNA or other trace evidence left by a perpetrator by clasping the body or disturbing the immediate area.
In the immediate aftermath of a disappearance … the parents have to be available to answer any questions the police who are coordinating the searches may need to ask them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 23, 2014, 06:33:08 PM
I'm not even sure I have ever heard of the parents taking part in the searches once it has been established a child is missing. In fact, I believe it is discouraged.
There are good reasons for that; one of which is, there may be parental involvement and s/he may take the opportunity to interfere with or contaminate evidence.
Another involves the crime scene; should a parent find the body of a child s/he may ruin DNA or other trace evidence left by a perpetrator by clasping the body or disturbing the immediate area.
In the immediate aftermath of a disappearance … the parents have to be available to answer any questions the police who are coordinating the searches may need to ask them.
A third reason is to protect the parents from the trauma of happening upon the remains of their loved one. It doesn't bear thinking about tbh.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on October 23, 2014, 09:07:03 PM
When did they go physically searching after that ?
Let's not forget the hundreds of people who searched that night and for several successive days after Madeleine's disappearance.
The mccanns did other things, AND they are well known, but unless someone can provide evidence/proof to the contrary, but it didn't include searching.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: colombosstogey on October 24, 2014, 07:29:33 AM
[ moderated ]
I lost my daughter years ago. Stupidly my husband forgot to lock our front door, and i had only left her minutes. I was outside running like a mad women crying and my heart was in my mouth, but i found her strolling a long the bush path looking at flowers.
If I hadnt found her i would have rang the police, and I know they would have asked me to stay in the house incase she came back and I was needed. What good would I do i was a mess on the point of collapse.
We all deal with things differently. There were searches lots of them. I cant comment on anything else about running etc, because my way of coping and dealing with bad things is to clean, and clean and clean.....we all have coping mechanisms.
Oh dear i suppose i will be accused again of being a fraud hey ho lol. (But i dont believe she was moved at 10pm).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 24, 2014, 09:40:01 AM
When did they go physically searching after that ?
Let's not forget the hundreds of people who searched that night and for several successive days after Madeleine's disappearance.
The mccanns did other things, AND they are well known, but unless someone can provide evidence/proof to the contrary, but it didn't include searching.
Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again - when you never accept the answers.
After searching in the morning - they spent the first day at the police station. When they returned - scores of reporters had arrived and were camped on their doorstep. Apart from the fact that the police may well have asked them to stay at home, it would not have been possible for them to try to search without being mobbed by reporters. Agreed?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 24, 2014, 09:49:28 AM
Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again - when you never accept the answers.
After searching in the morning - they spent the first day at the police station. When they returned - scores of reporters had arrived and were camped on their doorstep. Apart from the fact that the police may well have asked them to stay at home, it would not have been possible for them to try to search without being mobbed by reporters. Agreed?
i.e. they never 'searched' afterwards, did they.
They had plenty of time for other 'activities' which are well documented, and you well what those were, and added absolutely nothing in their 'search' for Madeleine.
and the reference to 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee' by you know who says everything about the mccanns you need to know.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 24, 2014, 09:54:33 AM
They had plenty of time for other 'activities' which are well documented, and you well what those were, and added absolutely nothing in their 'search' for Madeleine.
and the reference to 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee' by you know who says everything about the mccanns you need to know.
They did search Stephen.
Kate searched for her real live findable child, of whom there was absoloutely nothing to suggest she had come to any harm, inside a big old dumpster type bin!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2014, 10:14:43 AM
They had plenty of time for other 'activities' which are well documented, and you well what those were, and added absolutely nothing in their 'search' for Madeleine.
and the reference to 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee' by you know who says everything about the mccanns you need to know.
Your usual 'deflecting' tactics are noted and ignored.
So do you agree that it would have been impossible for them to physically search because of the crowds of news-starved reporters waiting to doorstep them? Or that the police would almost definitely have asked them to stay at home at that time?
Anyone who thinks that was not the case must have their blinkers superglued on IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2014, 10:36:03 AM
Are you denying hundreds of volunteers, including holidaymakers, residents, ex-pats, etc were searching for Madeleine ?
Or do you believe it was make believe ?
You know perfectly well that is not what I said, please do not put words into my mouth.
There is no point in hundreds of searching without being coordinated ... where is the evidence of that organisation?
Without a record being kept of who was searching where ... under professional supervision ... how did people know how many times an area was searched, or which areas had not been searched at all?
We watched the volunteers in the search for Mikaeel walking in a close line in designated areas with professionals directing their efforts.
There is no record of that happening in PDL ... so please stop deflecting ... and think not that indeed searches were carried out but about the efficacy of those searches.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 24, 2014, 10:54:13 AM
I think it is quite disgusting when people say the McCann's didn't search and use that as a weapon to beat them with.
Madeleine was almost four years old. When the McCann's and friends found her missing they searched everywhere they thought Madeleine would have gone. Remember this was a foreign country and that they were not on territory known to them.
They then waited for the police, their friends continued searching and so did hundreds of other people. It was necessary that the McCann's were there for the police as they would have needed to explain exactly what had happened and describe Madeleine to them.
The days following were filled with visits to the Police station, and further questioning.
The Police organised a search which would have been done in a professional way.
Would anyone have wanted the parents in the search party after a few days had gone by? Would you want to find your child dead? I doubt very much the police would have wanted the parents there.
Why pick on the McCann's this way, when if you read the aftermath of when Sarah Payne went missing you don't read that the Payne's were out there searching. They had searched where they thought Sarah would have gone, they did knock on doors, but this was in Britain where the people would have spoken English.
In the case of Ben Needham, his mother says she knocked on doors, only to be met with scared people who couldn't understand what she was talking about.
Would it have made sense for Kate and Gerry McCann to run madly around knocking on doors and screaming hysterically about their missing child? When most of the neighbours were either out searching or if they had ventured further into the Portugal housing locations spoke Portuguese?
The searching was best left to the police in my opinion.
As to the McCann's playing tennis and running. They did not play tennis or run in the days after Madeleine went missing indeed, they were not capable of functioning properly, from the statements of many witnesses they were in a state of absolute shock.
I see nothing wrong with them returning to tennis or running later on, they used these sports as a way of freeing them from tension and worry, as some would go for a long walk or attack the housework.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on October 24, 2014, 11:11:44 AM
I think it is quite disgusting when people say the McCann's didn't search and use that as a weapon to beat them with.
Madeleine was almost four years old. When the McCann's and friends found her missing they searched everywhere they thought Madeleine would have gone. Remember this was a foreign country and that they were not on territory known to them.
They then waited for the police, their friends continued searching and so did hundreds of other people. It was necessary that the McCann's were there for the police as they would have needed to explain exactly what had happened and describe Madeleine to them.
The days following were filled with visits to the Police station, and further questioning.
The Police organised a search which would have been done in a professional way.
Would anyone have wanted the parents in the search party after a few days had gone by? Would you want to find your child dead? I doubt very much the police would have wanted the parents there.
Why pick on the McCann's this way, when if you read the aftermath of when Sarah Payne went missing you don't read that the Payne's were out there searching. They had searched where they thought Sarah would have gone, they did knock on doors, but this was in Britain where the people would have spoken English.
In the case of Ben Needham, his mother says she knocked on doors, only to be met with scared people who couldn't understand what she was talking about.
Would it have made sense for Kate and Gerry McCann to run madly around knocking on doors and screaming hysterically about their missing child? When most of the neighbours were either out searching or if they had ventured further into the Portugal housing locations spoke Portuguese?
The searching was best left to the police in my opinion.
As to the McCann's playing tennis and running. They did not play tennis or run in the days after Madeleine went missing indeed, they were not capable of functioning properly, from the statements of many witnesses they were in a state of absolute shock.
I see nothing wrong with them returning to tennis or running later on, they used these sports as a way of freeing them from tension and worry, as some would go for a long walk or attack the housework.
Seems to have been effective, They look remarkably stress-free in many of their photos
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 24, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
I think it is quite disgusting when people say the McCann's didn't search and use that as a weapon to beat them with.
Madeleine was almost four years old. When the McCann's and friends found her missing they searched everywhere they thought Madeleine would have gone. Remember this was a foreign country and that they were not on territory known to them.
They then waited for the police, their friends continued searching and so did hundreds of other people. It was necessary that the McCann's were there for the police as they would have needed to explain exactly what had happened and describe Madeleine to them.
The days following were filled with visits to the Police station, and further questioning.
The Police organised a search which would have been done in a professional way.
Would anyone have wanted the parents in the search party after a few days had gone by? Would you want to find your child dead? I doubt very much the police would have wanted the parents there.
Why pick on the McCann's this way, when if you read the aftermath of when Sarah Payne went missing you don't read that the Payne's were out there searching. They had searched where they thought Sarah would have gone, they did knock on doors, but this was in Britain where the people would have spoken English.
In the case of Ben Needham, his mother says she knocked on doors, only to be met with scared people who couldn't understand what she was talking about.
Would it have made sense for Kate and Gerry McCann to run madly around knocking on doors and screaming hysterically about their missing child? When most of the neighbours were either out searching or if they had ventured further into the Portugal housing locations spoke Portuguese?
The searching was best left to the police in my opinion.
As to the McCann's playing tennis and running. They did not play tennis or run in the days after Madeleine went missing indeed, they were not capable of functioning properly, from the statements of many witnesses they were in a state of absolute shock.
I see nothing wrong with them returning to tennis or running later on, they used these sports as a way of freeing them from tension and worry, as some would go for a long walk or attack the housework.
Good post, Lace 8((()*/
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on October 24, 2014, 11:55:32 AM
Kate searched for her real live findable child, of whom there was absoloutely nothing to suggest she had come to any harm, inside a big old dumpster type bin!
1) Despite her profound distress, when (IIRC) Fiona offered to baby sit the twins, she also searched along the road down to Baptistas supermarket.
Really bad form Spammie ... to pick something out of context to try and blacken someones name. Looking in the bin was just a minor part of her search down the road ... and she was right to do it, to be sure that Madeleine was not in there.
2) From necessity, she had to be close by, for when the "expected" Police arrived but had to have someone look after the twins whilst she did it. IIRC Fiona looked after the twins.
I am amazed that she was allowed by the group to go looking, in her distressed state with the possibility of finding her daughters body .... but they were all out there searching except ?Fiona ... and Kate is a very strong woman. She wanted to go looking and she did.
3) The following morning at the crack of dawn, with their twins looked after, both she and Gerry were out searching again.
4) Since then their search has involved intellect and drive .... not gut feelings alone
They pulled off the greatest Coup possible; they got SY looking for them
No one could do better than that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 24, 2014, 01:04:43 PM
5:30 -7 am
"The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents." (Madeleine)
3-4 am
"Me and Gerry you know I'm not sure what time it was, it was you know between three and four o' clock when, again went looking for her. We went down err through past the Ocean Club reception, we went down err to the beach and he broke down with me on the front, you know. You know just very obviously a broken man, and you know we spent some time you know, not long, I was trying my best to console him, we went back then to the err the apartment, you know it's, by around about four, four thirty in the morning you know there was nothing else that you know that we could do." (DP)
"You just want to crawl under a rock and never and just say make it all go away." (GM)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on October 24, 2014, 05:53:53 PM
So they did search??
I think this loosely ties into the general theme of the thread, because by asking whether the McCanns searched we are questioning their behaviour. What is your opinion on this guy? Bearing in mind this interview was some time ago...
Gerry was witnessed searching and recorded as such by Neil Berry and Raj. Strangely all records of their witness statements have been "lost".
Also Caroline Carpenters statement has been "lost"
How extraordinarily strange that the three statements that could have helped Gerry prove where he was at certain pertinent times, have all gone missing .... Hmmm? &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 24, 2014, 09:41:50 PM
No statements have been lost. They weren't released.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 24, 2014, 11:14:17 PM
"The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents." (Madeleine)
3-4 am
"Me and Gerry you know I'm not sure what time it was, it was you know between three and four o' clock when, again went looking for her. We went down err through past the Ocean Club reception, we went down err to the beach and he broke down with me on the front, you know. You know just very obviously a broken man, and you know we spent some time you know, not long, I was trying my best to console him, we went back then to the err the apartment, you know it's, by around about four, four thirty in the morning you know there was nothing else that you know that we could do." (DP)
"You just want to crawl under a rock and never and just say make it all go away." (GM)
This would have been because they had families to protect and some actually needed sleep! as they had worked long shifts. This is a sad,cruel dig at all those people who gave up their time to search- It must have been terrible for those people in that community to be faced with such a shocking crime.
...and look how they were repaid.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 25, 2014, 10:04:52 AM
[ quote removed ]
Well one of the things they didn’t fail in was in getting the official search for Madeleine off the ground again … it wasn’t easy … they had to fight every step of the way and it took them seven years … but they achieved the nigh impossible … and that is what some people can’t take.
In that category are those with a particular interest in suppressing the truth because of their involvement; and those who are too short sighted to see how they are being used to hinder the search.
The graffiti artists in PDL come to mind as do those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent the review into Madeleine’s case and the reopening of her case.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 25, 2014, 10:18:49 AM
The graffiti artists in PDL come to mind as do those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent the review into Madeleine’s case and the reopening of her case.
The people of PDL just want it all to be over and then they can get back to normal.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 25, 2014, 11:19:11 AM
You really do like making things up, merely because people don't believe the mccanns.
I have never understood why anyone believes that for the McCanns to react in a pragmatic way to unforeseen circumstances they would have to be psychopaths.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on October 25, 2014, 11:30:59 PM
No statements have been lost. They weren't released.
Why weren't they released?
The statements that proved Gerry WAS searching at the pertinent time were NOT released? Why ever not?
Anyway SY will have interviewed Raj, Neil and Caroline and they will know the truth
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Montclair on October 26, 2014, 12:04:51 PM
Reflections from a blog about the first night and what I found strange was Kate McCann's silence during the whole time:
The Cracked Mirror Reflections on the McCann affair The Policemen's Tales It fell to the Portuguese Republican National Guard — the Guarda Nacional Republicana or GNR — to respond to the calls for help from Praia de Luz. The GNR is the gendarmerie of the Portuguese state, copied originally from the French model, its role being general policing and the maintenance of law and order, not criminal investigation. Before 2007 its international reputation was largely anonymous and uncontroversial, due perhaps to the relatively law abiding nature of the Portuguese people, both policemen and policed, rather than any special GNR qualities. As far as outsiders are concerned anecdotal evidence suggested that foreigners found this gendarmerie, despite its relatively low pay, rather more amicable and trustworthy than its neighbouring Spanish counterpart, with few of the stories of petty, but shady, exploitation of foreigners that continue to sour the reputation of its Spanish equivalent. Like all police forces in the EU it had for many years been drawn ever more closely into the network of European common policing standards.
Officer José María Batista Roque of the GNR and his colleague Nelson da Costa were on vehicle patrol near Odiaxere on the night of May 3. Working out of the Lagos GNR station under its commander Sergeant Antonio da Duarte Conceição both were highly experienced men with decades of service between them. The radio message they received from Lagos instructed them to proceed to Praia de Luz to investigate reports of a missing child. A further message was received while they were on their way: it had now been reported to Lagos that the child was extremely young and that there were serious concerns for her safety. Proceed with all urgency.
Their syrens announced their arrival around 11 PM. They quickly found their way to the throng in the main reception area of the Ocean Club. There they were greeted by a Mark Warner employee with language skills, M/S Sylvia Batista, and a distressed — he fell to his knees in front of the officers — Gerry McCann, who had left the apartment to meet them. The two police officers, Mr McCann, another of the Tapas group and Silvia Batista – to interpret - all drove up to apartment 5A, where Kate was waiting, and attempted to get a handle on just what was supposed to have happened.
It was not easy. Both Gerry McCann and some of the Tapas helping to make up the bustling crowd in the apartment talked of the disappearance as a possible abduction but none of them gave any clear information as to how they had formed this view so soon, or what evidence there was to suggest it. The views of the Tapas group were, of course, essentially worthless since none of them had any first-hand knowledge of the circumstances of the child's disappearance; the only first hand witness of the state of the apartment at 10 PM was Kate McCann.
Kate McCann said nothing. Whatever she had cried or shouted to friends and relatives about shutters, intrusion and the certainty of a kidnap she did not share with officer Roque. Instead Gerry McCann, still apparently in a state of shock and at times hardly coherent, spoke of an open window and raised shutter in the child’s bedroom but, crucially, according to the reports of the police officers, made no suggestion that it had been forced. In the middle of this confusion, with Sylvia Batista translating merely that Gerry McCann was “suggesting” a possible abduction, with the eyes of the frightened and agitated people in the room upon him and with the shouts from the searchers in the street in his ears, Officer Roque began at the beginning and searched the apartment.
He found nothing to suggest that apartment 5A was in fact a crime scene. Far from having been disturbed in any way the child’s siblings were still sleeping soundly; there was no evidence of forced entry; there was not a sign of even the minimal struggle that a child might put up, let alone any displaced furniture, evidence of injury or use of force, and, of course, no visible traces of an intruder. Roque reported matter of factly of his search: “I found nothing strange in the apartment.”
With one exception. Roque added that the bedclothes on Madeleine’s bed “were too tidy.” It appeared, he reported, “that she had been picked up, or had left the bed, with great care. There was a mark on the sheet that appeared to be made by a child’s body.”
What exactly Roque might have inferred from the bedding being "too tidy" he did not say but – and here we can read something between the lines of his factual statements, the twitching instincts, perhaps, of an experienced policeman — he gave the impression of being somehow troubled by the parents. Naturally they were “nervous and anxious,” he said, but at times he found their behaviour “unusual,” adding that, at one point, both of them knelt down on the floor of their bedroom and placed their heads on the bed, crying, although there were no tears. Clearly the whole scenario failed to form a consistent picture.
What about those “jemmied” shutters and the window through which a kidnapper might have entered? They hardly featured in officer Roque’s initial report at all, since almost nothing had been said about them and he had seen nothing to suggest they had been interfered with. Much later, when investigators' suspicions about the parents’ version of events had arisen, he was explicitly questioned about the bedroom window by his superiors. In response he replied that he only remembered that the window in the girl’s bedroom was closed, with the exterior blind raised “the width of a hand.” Officer Roque knew that such a gap could not have been occasioned from outside since, as we explain below, these shutters can only be rolled up from the inside. He remembered nothing about the curtains and reiterated merely that Gerry McCann, not the virtually silent Kate, had indicated through the interpreter that the “window and shutter” had been open when the disappearance was discovered.
The shutters which officer Roque looked at are of a type not normally seen in the UK. Their perforated metal slats form a roll in a housing above the window and are operated by a vertical webbing strap, like a car safety belt, in an aperture on the inside wall alongside the window. To raise them one pulls downwards on the webbing and they are lowered by pulling and releasing the strap which, via a ratchet system, enables them to unroll and drop to their full extent on the outside of the building.
These shutters feature two important security features. First of all they are always designed to fit snugly inside the exterior window recess and to descend the full drop to a window sill. This ensures that intruders cannot get their fingers under the shutter bottom to start lifting them: they must first insert a thin object, a screwdriver for example, or a knife to get the lift started, in colourful old-fashioned burglarese, a “jemmy.”
Secondly the ratchet system means that while the shutter can be lifted it cannot be rolled up from the outside since the roller remains in the locked position in its overhead housing unless released by the interior webbing strap. Attempts to raise it from outside, therefore, result in a heavy, unwieldy and sagging mass of metal which can only be held in a raised position by using props between sill and shutter. No evidence of the use of a jemmy or any tool was uncovered, then or later, and officer Roque could see that there was no distortion of the shutter and no sign of props: it had been opened from the inside. Nor was any evidence of the window itself being forced ever found.
Roque later reported quite frankly that his own feeling was that this was not an abduction, though he did not state whether he based his view purely on the absence of intruder evidence.
And he was not alone. His colleague, Officer da Costa, gave a similar report. After the meeting at reception he had, he said, searched the apartment with his colleague, opening all cupboards in the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and checking under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see anything strange during the search, he reported, and there was no sign of a break in.
In fact, unlike officer Roque, he could not remember the father even mentioning an abduction and the only comment that he remembered Kate McCann making was a tearful request for more police officers. Thus a second officer made his inquiries without a word from the key witness, Kate McCann, regarding what she had seen at 10PM.
Officer Roque searched outside the apartment while da Costa remained inside or at the door. It was then, he reported, that a woman, evidently Jane Tanner although the officer did not identify her, told him that earlier on she had seen someone carrying a child “and running”. Because of the pyjamas the child had been wearing, she said, it could have been Madeleine McCann. Only then, said officer da Costa, did abduction “begin to be talked about.”
His response to Jane Tanner was sceptical. If she had been able to see the pattern of the child’s pyjamas, he reasoned, then there must have been quite good light. So he asked her about the much more important question of what the person carrying the child looked like. She couldn’t tell him, replied Jane Tanner, since it was “very dark.” No, he reported, he did not find the “sighting” credible.
Officer da Costa stated that he neither saw nor heard any evidence to make him believe that an abduction had occurred; his personal view, he reported was that “it did not appear to be an abduction, but rather a normal disappearance where the child had left by her own means.” Again the impression is given that things didn’t form a picture to an experienced policeman, didn’t add up. The thing that stuck him particularly, and that he found “strange” was that the twins never woke up, despite the considerable noise in the apartment.
At around 11.15, only some quarter of an hour after his arrival, Roque contacted the Lagos police station and spoke to his superior Sergeant da Duarte Conceição, another veteran with twenty five years service. Despite his doubts and reservations he gave the sergeant a brief and relatively objective account of the facts, including that the father “had put forward a theory” that it could have been abduction and mentioned that a shutter could have been raised. With no sign of the child and no clues to indicate that she had wandered off Duarte now told the officer to preserve the apartment as a possible crime scene and wait with his colleague for him to join them. Then he set off at once for Praia de Luz.
He got to the Ocean Club just an hour after the arrival of his colleagues. By now talk of “the abduction” had strengthened among the UK group. Sergeant da Duarte Conceição was told immediately by Silvia Batista that the group were now describing it firmly as an abduction with Gerry McCann – neither hysterical nor rolling on the apartment floor at this time - joining her to emphasise the point. Not only that, added Silvia Batista, but the holiday group had printed photographs of the child and were already contacting the media to inform them of the “abduction.”
Contacting the media at midnight? But the narrative, according to friends and family, was that the media had only been contacted after the failings of the investigation had become clear and the parents had been left isolated and unsupported with “nothing happening” at 4.30 in the morning. It is hard to see any real cause for dissatisfaction with the police so soon – police who were doing their best to find their daughter.
What dissatisfaction could there be? The idea that the search effort could immediately be transferred from the local area to a far-away hunt for kidnappers with all the fashionable paraphernalia of closed borders and the rest of it was simply fanciful, both at the time and in hindsight. Leaving aside that there was no description of a vehicle or any third party to alert outside forces to and, indeed, absolutely nothing to suggest a kidnapping save the hearsay hunches of the Tapas group, how could resources have been switched away from Praia de Luz without risking the fate of the child?
The overwhelming need was to exhaust every local avenue in case the child was lying trapped somewhere in the darkness, in a gulley perhaps, or lying injured at the foot of a stone staircase, possibly with rapid loss of blood. And that is what the police, while increasingly mindful of other, remote, possibilities did.
Sergeant Duarte, just like the other two officers, could see nothing, literally nothing, to indicate that an abduction had taken place. And once again Kate McCann did not come forward to tell the sergeant what she had seen. Even so, after carrying out further searches, he contacted headquarters for more officers to attend the scene immediately, called in the nearest available dog team and contacted the criminal investigation police, the PJ, in Portimao.
And thereafter the search effort and investigation rapidly gathered pace. The additional officers from the GNR requested by sergeant Duarte soon arrived and, at about 12.40 AM, so did Inspector Pimental of the PJ together with a technical scene-of-crime officer. Despite the continued absence of any hard evidence to indicate that apartment 5A had been a crime location rather than merely the child’s temporary home, the apartment was cleared, the twins finally moved – still unconscious - and the family allocated alternative rooms so that a forensic search could be made.
The parents, reported the inspector, “looked quite tired and anguished,” particularly the mother. Not only anguished, but silent. For the fourth time that night Kate McCann, the only witness of value, failed to come forward and tell the police – this time in the person of a criminal investigator - what she had seen. Once again the story of the jemmied shutters and the evidence that made her “certain” that abduction, not a disappearance, had taken place – evidence that Kate McCann later alleged that she had given the Portuguese police but could not describe to the public - once again, her story went untold.
After the site had been isolated the inspector examined the flat with his specialist Barreiras. Both of them were critical of the free-for-all that had been allowed to continue in the apartment before their arrival due to the failure of the GNR officers to lock down the location. Statements and photographs were taken and the inside of the bedroom window was finger printed. While GNR officers remained on site to keep the apartment isolated tracker dogs began searching around 2.30 in the morning. Throughout the night the strengthened forces continued to search streets, gardens and car parks and now vehicles were being stopped for examination as well. Between 2 and 2.30 AM Portimao police headquarters, after liaising with the PJ officers at the scene, contacted Faro to ensure that outgoing flights from the airport were monitored while the GNR in Lagos were ordered to keep vehicles under observation for signs of the child.
At dawn Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida of the Criminal Investigation Department in Portimao, after abandoning his planned holiday, began consideration of a further widening of the investigation. The first phase of the search for Madeleine McCann had finally ended and it was time to draw breath. It was around now, between 4.30 AM and 7, that the local search was temporarily wound down, three officers only continuing with the so-far fruitless effort while their colleagues got some badly needed rest. This was the period that the McCanns described as a time when “nothing was happening,” when, in Kate McCann’s words the investigation had all the urgency of a “search for a missing dog” - the comments a scurvy reward, it may be thought, for the efforts that the Portuguese had put in throughout the night to find the child of these strangers in their land.
It was also the period which finally prompted the despairing couple, neither of whom, of course, could have been aware of the full dimensions or any shortcomings, of the search effort – for how would they have known? - to call for full-scale outside media and political help via their friends and family.
Or so the narrative tells us.
From what we have seen above it is clear that the “narrative”, constructed by the parents and their friends, does not tally with the facts as reported by the police. The parents and the group had, despite their continued denials, in fact contacted the media, in the form of Sky News, long before there was any evidence of shortcomings in the investigation, probably within a very short time of contacting the police themselves, as the group finally admitted at their UK police interviews in April 2008; Kate McCann did not show the police the supposed evidence that “made it obvious” that it must have been an abduction; astonishingly, she did not tell any of the police, either the GNR or the criminal investigation officers of what she had seen, despite her frenzied phone calls though the night with the repeated and insistent claims of jemmying and forced entry. From all the evidence it is clear that the strategy of contacting the media and UK politicians, for whatever purposes, did not result from their response to police actions or failings but preceded them. The “narrative” is quite clearly, for whatever reason and making all allowances for the situation the parents found themselves in, an invention.
Many hectares of print have been covered with the criticisms and contemptuous insults directed at the Portuguese investigation and the decent and well-meaning officers who participated in that first night’s effort. Perhaps, in the light of the policemens’ tales it is best to stand back, take a deep breath and consider the simplest and most well-supported explanation of why the police “failed to isolate the crime scene” or immediately “broaden the search”.
They didn’t do so because none of them, despite their efforts, ever found anything to suggest an abduction had taken place, or was even likely. And almost certainly they were right: there was never any evidence of abduction to find.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 26, 2014, 12:08:43 PM
8.00am, Monday 14 May 2007
Since the lawyers have come here we have visibly felt a burden being lifted from our shoulders because there's one less thing that we do not have to immediately think about and how we can coordinate them.
This has allowed us to concentrate more on our own physical and mental well-being. We do need to spend more time at this point considering ourselves, our family - who's Sean and Amelie - and contemplating about the situation that we were in. (GM)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id170.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Montclair on October 26, 2014, 12:20:07 PM
Since the lawyers have come here we have visibly felt a burden being lifted from our shoulders because there's one less thing that we do not have to immediately think about and how we can coordinate them.
This has allowed us to concentrate more on our own physical and mental well-being. We do need to spend more time at this point considering ourselves, our family - who's Sean and Amelie - and contemplating about the situation that we were in. (GM)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id170.html
The whole story has always been about them, hasn't it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 27, 2014, 12:21:05 PM
The whole story has always been about them, hasn't it?
Yes indeed it has. They were more hurt about what Amaral wrote about his theory, than their daughters horrific situation. I bet that shook the judge in Portugal!
Says a lot about them really. And does anyone else pick up that they talked about Maddie as if she wasn't related to them ... little girl is missing - been snatched -stolen-abducted. I found that so strange.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 27, 2014, 12:46:23 PM
What Actual Searching Was There?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 27, 2014, 01:15:35 PM
A lot of searching but nothing found. The rocks couldn't have been searched properly in the pitch black. The sandy beach area was far easier to search but she wasn't there. You would have to check properly under every rock and cranny which didn't happen. The tip would also have to be checked. Mobile triangulation is the way to finding Madeleine and where she was hidden that night. But I would get the dogs on the rocky area and in and under every rock.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 27, 2014, 08:54:27 PM
A lot of searching but nothing found. The rocks couldn't have been searched properly in the pitch black. The sandy beach area was far easier to search but she wasn't there. You would have to check properly under every rock and cranny which didn't happen. The tip would also have to be checked. Mobile triangulation is the way to finding Madeleine and where she was hidden that night. But I would get the dogs on the rocky area and in and under every rock.
Yes, I agree. The 'initial search' could have been for a live child, and not a dead one, who had been dumped somewhere...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on October 28, 2014, 05:41:33 AM
Yes, I agree. The 'initial search' could have been for a live child, and not a dead one, who had been dumped somewhere...
The search was massive involving land, sea and air operations. They were undoubtedly looking for a live child who had wandered and got into difficulties or who had been abandoned after being abducted.
Had they been looking for a deceased child on land the urgency of the task would have been much lesser.
An interesting point worthy of note is that when the first GNR officers arrived at the apartment the allegedly previously opened window was now closed and the shutter dropped to within inches of the window sill. No wonder the first police officers who arrived on the scene were sceptical.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: insider on October 11, 2015, 05:50:09 PM
Latest news on the search is there isn't any. Despite claims by the McCanns that no stone will remain unturned blah blah.. the search has all but been abandoned. Letters of request to the Portuguese are not being actively pursued which says it all imo.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 11, 2015, 06:10:41 PM
Latest news on the search is there isn't any. Despite claims by the McCanns that no stone will remain unturned blah blah.. the search has all but been abandoned. Letters of request to the Portuguese are not being actively pursued which says it all imo.
What has always mystified me and just about everyone I have spoken to about this disappearance is how the McCanns have always been good at encouraging others to do the searching while they get on with their own lives. The Needhams on the other hand have been out there in Kos leading from the front with very little money to fall back on. The difference is like night and day!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 11, 2015, 06:12:23 PM
What has always mystified me and just about everyone I have spoken to about this disappearance is how the McCanns have always been good at encouraging others to do the searching while they get on with their own lives.
You have it in one Angelo.
Let's never say the mccanns are selfish. 8)-)))
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 11, 2015, 06:46:36 PM
What has always mystified me and just about everyone I have spoken to about this disappearance is how the McCanns have always been good at encouraging others to do the searching while they get on with their own lives. The Needhams on the other hand have been out there in Kos leading from the front with very little money to fall back on. The difference is like night and day!
They travelled throughout Europe and North Africa spreading the message, doing news conferences, putting up posters
Both of them did minimal searching on the actual night though Kate McCann says in her book she searched for an hour the next morning
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 12, 2015, 11:18:35 AM
Latest news on the search is there isn't any. Despite claims by the McCanns that no stone will remain unturned blah blah.. the search has all but been abandoned. Letters of request to the Portuguese are not being actively pursued which says it all imo.
I don't understand this. Every day it is posted on here how PJ and SY are working their butts off searching for an abductor and the child. Do you mean this is not true?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 12, 2015, 11:38:56 AM
They travelled throughout Europe and North Africa spreading the message, doing news conferences, putting up posters
Both of them did minimal searching on the actual night though Kate McCann says in her book she searched for an hour the next morning
Do you think they should have told the police to go away- as they wanted to search rather then be interviewed and get a police operation underway.? They knew a large no. of people were already searching.
IIRC Gerry was seen searching in the area of the swimming pool before the police arrived . He also went out again after the police left.
As soon as it was light - they both went out searching - and were seen returning by a GNR officer.
IIRC April Jones parents didn't search after the police arrived. They were probably too distressed to function properly at that time. In any case - the advice of the police is for the parents to stay at home so that they are easily contactable if necessary - and in case the child returns.
After the massive number of Press arrived - it would have been impossible for the McCanns to go out searching IMO. They would have been 'mobbed'by reporters.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 12, 2015, 11:57:35 AM
What has always mystified me and just about everyone I have spoken to about this disappearance is how the McCanns have always been good at encouraging others to do the searching while they get on with their own lives. The Needhams on the other hand have been out there in Kos leading from the front with very little money to fall back on. The difference is like night and day!
Kate has been back to Prai de Luz on several occasions since Madeleine disappeared. How do you know she didn't search while she was there?
You seem to think the only way to search is to physically go to where the child was last seen. I can just imagine the comments if K&G regularly jetted off to do that. They would be accused of wasting the fund money and neglecting the twins - and that's just for starters.
Physical searching - when you have no idea where in the world your child could be is the most financially wasteful and ineffective method to adopt. IMO.
The McCanns took the experts advice i.e. that keeping Madeleine's profile as high as possible for as long as possible in the public eye is what they should do - as that would give her the best chance of being found.
No doubt if they had ignored that advice they would be accused of being arrogant and thinking they knew better than the experts.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't imo.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 12, 2015, 12:06:52 PM
They travelled throughout Europe and North Africa spreading the message, doing news conferences, putting up posters
Both of them did minimal searching on the actual night though Kate McCann says in her book she searched for an hour the next morning
How do you suggest they should have conducted their own search?
Should they perhaps have thumped on the Moyes apartment door ... demanded entry ... and start searching under beds and in cupboards?
What about the Fenn apartment? Maybe they should have charged up there ... demanded entry and commenced searching?
If the police had been so minded they might have had the legal right to do so if invited in or if they had cause for suspicion ... they could have roused a magistrate to obtain a search warrant. Distraught parents do not enjoy the privileges law enforcement does nor is it expected for them to do so.
Once a child is discovered missing, cannot be found in obvious places after a search and the authorities called in, the role of the parents is to be on hand to provide intelligence to assist the police organised search.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 12, 2015, 12:19:01 PM
To suggest that The McCanns should have done more searching is really rather silly. Everyone knows the reasons for why this wasn't possible. So it's a pathetic attempt to make The McCanns look bad.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: insider on October 12, 2015, 12:21:36 PM
To suggest that The McCanns should have done more searching is really rather silly. Everyone knows the reasons for why this wasn't possible. So it's a pathetic attempt to make The McCanns look bad.
Why was it not possible Ellie, the Needhams managed it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: insider on October 12, 2015, 12:24:02 PM
I don't understand this. Every day it is posted on here how PJ and SY are working their butts off searching for an abductor and the child. Do you mean this is not true?
The Portuguese have put very little resources into any renewed search, it is the British taxpayer who is funding the winding down of this particular investigation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 12:32:32 PM
the idea the McCanns have not searched is ridiculous...they have organised the largest missing person search in history...they have actually done far more than the needhams if you want to be picky
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 12, 2015, 12:34:58 PM
the idea the McCanns have not searched is ridiculous...they have organised the largest missing person search in history...they have actually done far more than the needhams if you want to be picky
Typing on a keyboard isn't searching.
The only established physical searching they did the following morning briefly.
As to the rest, watch Jane Hill's interview with Kate Mccann.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 12:36:23 PM
They have searched and interviewed many locals over many years and provided many leads to the local police.
the mccanns have persuaded SY to investigate all leads and have persuaded the govt to spend 11 million funding it...that's far more impressive and effective to me
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 12, 2015, 12:53:51 PM
the mccanns have persuaded SY to investigate all leads and have persuaded the govt to spend 11 million funding it...that's far more impressive and effective to me
To what end.
They have found nothing. It could be said that they were on the wrong track.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 12, 2015, 12:57:12 PM
the idea the McCanns have not searched is ridiculous...they have organised the largest missing person search in history...they have actually done far more than the needhams if you want to be picky
There have certainly been some very thorough searches of lawyers' offices both in London and in Lisbon.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: insider on October 12, 2015, 01:03:55 PM
You didn't answer my question Ellie, why have the McCanns never searched for their missing child in Portugal since the day after she disappeared?
Because there was nowhere to start from, and because they had no legal right to demand access to anywhere.
Any sighting even if true was reported after the event, and best left to The Police, especially if the child in question would not have been seen again in precisely the same place, or even in the vicinity.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: insider on October 12, 2015, 01:36:03 PM
Because there was nowhere to start from, and because they had no legal right to demand access to anywhere.
Any sighting even if true was reported after the event, and best left to The Police, especially if the child in question would not have been seen again in precisely the same place, or even in the vicinity.
That's the most limp excuse I've ever read Ellie. You and I know the truth is somewhat different. Had the McCanns engaged with the Portuguese authorities instead of antagonising them this case could have been solved eight years ago.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 12, 2015, 01:58:35 PM
That's the most limp excuse I've ever read Ellie. You and I know the truth is somewhat different. Had the McCanns engaged with the Portuguese authorities instead of antagonising them this case could have been solved eight years ago.
Your Opinion Only.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 02:47:23 PM
That's the most limp excuse I've ever read Ellie. You and I know the truth is somewhat different. Had the McCanns engaged with the Portuguese authorities instead of antagonising them this case could have been solved eight years ago.
how would it have been solved....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: insider on October 12, 2015, 02:47:35 PM
?{)(** Isn't that what the parents of a missing child normally do? ie Cooperate with police.
not when the police have decided they are guilty...which is what amaral has told us...the mccanns had already co operated ..answering hours of questions and telling the police what happenned
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 12, 2015, 02:51:27 PM
the mccanns have persuaded SY to investigate all leads and have persuaded the govt to spend 11 million funding it...that's far more impressive and effective to me
it does come under the heading of persuading others to search though, doesn't it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 02:55:58 PM
it does come under the heading of persuading others to search though, doesn't it?
I think its ridiculous to suggest the mccanns should physically search...its the job of the professionals.....they have done far more by persuading SY to get involved
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on October 12, 2015, 03:00:26 PM
not when the police have decided they are guilty...which is what amaral has told us...the mccanns had already co operated ..answering hours of questions and telling the police what happenned
How many hours? Kate was interviewed once and Gerald twice.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 12, 2015, 03:02:15 PM
?{)(** Isn't that what the parents of a missing child normally do? ie Cooperate with police.
They did co-operate with the police - right up to the point where they realised the police had wrongly decided that they were the perpetrators. Do innocent people normally decide to help the police to pin a crime on them which they know they did not commit? No sane person would do that IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 12, 2015, 03:09:23 PM
I think its ridiculous to suggest the mccanns should physically search...its the job of the professionals.....they have done far more by persuading SY to get involved
Now that is a classic.
Whose responsibility was it to take care of their children and fail in that ?
As to SY, they would not have been involved except for the 'intervention' of Rebekah Brooks and Cameron.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on October 12, 2015, 03:11:30 PM
it does come under the heading of persuading others to search though, doesn't it?
Do you apply the same opinion to Kerry Needham, who has spent years trying to persuade the police to search for her son - and who (partially as a result of SY's search for Madeleine) has now succeeded.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 12, 2015, 03:24:15 PM
That's the most limp excuse I've ever read Ellie. You and I know the truth is somewhat different. Had the McCanns engaged with the Portuguese authorities instead of antagonising them this case could have been solved eight years ago.
IIRC it was the UK press who antagonised them. What did the McCanns do to antagonise the Portuguese PJ - apart from refusing to oblige them by confessing to a crime which they did not commit?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 12, 2015, 03:31:02 PM
So what actual searching was there? Some searching by members of a group including but not limited to: Drs McCann T7 G.N.R P.J. O.C/Mark Warner Employees Members of the general public Metodo3 Oakley International A.I.G M.P.S
Result ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on October 12, 2015, 03:42:05 PM
So what actual searching was there? Some searching by members of a group including but not limited to: Drs McCann T7 G.N.R P.J. O.C/Mark Warner Employees Members of the general public Metodo3 Oakley International A.I.G M.P.S
Result ?
As far as we know, absolutely nothing.
Of course, SY might be on the very verge of denouncing the guilty party and then again, perhaps not.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 12, 2015, 03:46:02 PM
They did co-operate with the police - right up to the point where they realised the police had wrongly decided that they were the perpetrators. Do innocent people normally decide to help the police to pin a crime on them which they know they did not commit? No sane person would do that IMO.
The police told them not to get the media involved. They have tried to take control from the start getting Gordon Brown involved to release Tannerman etc. Pope visit main story on the news in diary - oh how exciting Kate yippee. Going to Washington, paying £500K to keep them on the front pages. Refusing to answer questions to clear themselves, suppressing efits, not going back for a reconstruction - we don't know how it can help? It will help the police Gerry you arrogant......
Processos Vol X
Pages 2533 - 2534
Date: 2007/09/03
For : Goncalo Amaral
From Ricardo Paiva, Inspector
Subject: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Several times, the McCann couple said that the attention of the police should be maintained focussing on the abduction hypothesis, which, in the couple's opinion, was the only scenario that occurred and that the police should not forget to continue to investigate the suspect Robert Murat.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on October 12, 2015, 03:55:36 PM
Kate was advised not to answer the questions. Just as parents of missing children are advised not to search.
There was no reason why the McCanns and their family and friends shouldn't have joined the search teams during the week after Madeleine went missing.
Should I still search for my child myself once the police are involved?
Speak with the police to reach some agreement as to what you should do whilst they are searching, so that you do not duplicate each others’ efforts.
If you do head out to search for your child, ensure that someone remains in the family home - just in case your child returns home of your own accord. http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2015/07/what-to-do-if-your-child-goes-missing
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 12, 2015, 04:00:06 PM
There was no reason why the McCanns and their family and friends shouldn't have joined the search teams during the week after Madeleine went missing.
Should I still search for my child myself once the police are involved?
Speak with the police to reach some agreement as to what you should do whilst they are searching, so that you do not duplicate each others’ efforts.
If you do head out to search for your child, ensure that someone remains in the family home - just in case your child returns home of your own accord. http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2015/07/what-to-do-if-your-child-goes-missing
Especially the mother and father of the missing child who are in a state of collapse. When they didn't have to be available for The Police.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 12, 2015, 04:08:22 PM
Don't you think every parent is in a state of collapse if their child goes missing. Doesn't stop them searching, does it ?
Yes it does, if they have any sense. Or do you think it's a good idea for them to come across the body of their child and then ruin the crime scene. That is a real possibility.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on October 12, 2015, 04:16:50 PM
not when the police have decided they are guilty...which is what amaral has told us...the mccanns had already co operated ..answering hours of questions and telling the police what happenned
...or did the way the McCann's cooperated influence the police thoughts?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 04:33:41 PM
There was no reason why the McCanns and their family and friends shouldn't have joined the search teams during the week after Madeleine went missing.
Should I still search for my child myself once the police are involved?
Speak with the police to reach some agreement as to what you should do whilst they are searching, so that you do not duplicate each others’ efforts.
If you do head out to search for your child, ensure that someone remains in the family home - just in case your child returns home of your own accord. http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2015/07/what-to-do-if-your-child-goes-missing
Any advice there - when you set out on your search - on how to deal with hundreds of reporters camped on your doorstep, starved of information from the police due to the secrecy laws - and desperate for 'copy' to send back to their editors?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 04:38:33 PM
There was no reason why the McCanns and their family and friends shouldn't have joined the search teams during the week after Madeleine went missing.
Should I still search for my child myself once the police are involved?
Speak with the police to reach some agreement as to what you should do whilst they are searching, so that you do not duplicate each others’ efforts.
If you do head out to search for your child, ensure that someone remains in the family home - just in case your child returns home of your own accord. http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2015/07/what-to-do-if-your-child-goes-missing
As I have said I think that's a ridiculous idea...but it's a matter of opinion
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 12, 2015, 04:39:03 PM
Yes it does, if they have any sense. Or do you think it's a good idea for them to come across the body of their child and then ruin the crime scene. That is a real possibility.
Sense doesn't come into it though does it ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 12, 2015, 05:00:56 PM
Any advice there - when you set out on your search - on how to deal with hundreds of reporters camped on your doorstep, starved of information from the police due to the secrecy laws - and desperate for 'copy' to send back to their editors?
1. Who brought the media to Praia da Luz? Oh yes, the McCanns and their friends. 2. Did the media chase them when they went jogging? Oh no, they had an agreement with them.
REMEMBER: ASK THE POLICE TO HELP WITH CONTACTING THE MEDIA - DO NOT DO SO YOURSELF.
This will help to make sure that any activity you carry out has the greatest chance of success and fits in with what the police are doing.
You should also discuss what information about the missing person should and should not be given to the media with the police officer investigating the case, as this may affect the investigation.
In rare cases, police may advise against publicity and if so, they will tell you the reasons for doing this. http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2015/07/what-to-do-if-your-child-goes-missing
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 12, 2015, 05:58:16 PM
1. Who brought the media to Praia da Luz? Oh yes, the McCanns and their friends. 2. Did the media chase them when they went jogging? Oh no, they had an agreement with them.
REMEMBER: ASK THE POLICE TO HELP WITH CONTACTING THE MEDIA - DO NOT DO SO YOURSELF.
This will help to make sure that any activity you carry out has the greatest chance of success and fits in with what the police are doing.
You should also discuss what information about the missing person should and should not be given to the media with the police officer investigating the case, as this may affect the investigation.
In rare cases, police may advise against publicity and if so, they will tell you the reasons for doing this. http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2015/07/what-to-do-if-your-child-goes-missing
The McCanns wouldn't have a clue that the Portuguese way was to NOT advertise missing children in the media. That would be completely alien to them All they would know is what happens in the UK. As it happens they did not contact the media themselves, a friend of one of their friends did. It was as a result of that info appearing on TV that hordes of reporters were sent off to Luz. The McCanns didn't ask them to come and could have no idea that they were going to arrive in their hundreds.
The first appeal in Portugal re her disappearance and giving her description including her eye defect was on 5th May - at Amaral's instigation. One occasion when IMO he could not be criticised for being slow off the mark.
IMO it was because of the huge press presence, which the McCanns had absolutely no control over, that C.Mitchell was sent out to help them to cope with. And why not? They had no experience of dealing with the press. They would have been lambs to the slaughter IMO.
Yes they did go out jogging - we have the photographs taken by the press to prove it. But that was not during the first week - when IMO any attempt to go out and about in Luz would have been impossible due to the press attention they would have received. I assume that when CM arrived he came to some kind of mutual arrangement with the press to allow the McCanns to go out without being pursued by reporters. But that's guesswork on my part.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 12, 2015, 10:18:48 PM
List of people who stated they actually searched behind that sofa that night
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 12, 2015, 10:47:57 PM
Do you think they should have told the police to go away- as they wanted to search rather then be interviewed and get a police operation underway.? They knew a large no. of people were already searching.
IIRC Gerry was seen searching in the area of the swimming pool before the police arrived . He also went out again after the police left.
As soon as it was light - they both went out searching - and were seen returning by a GNR officer.
IIRC April Jones parents didn't search after the police arrived. They were probably too distressed to function properly at that time. In any case - the advice of the police is for the parents to stay at home so that they are easily contactable if necessary - and in case the child returns.
After the massive number of Press arrived - it would have been impossible for the McCanns to go out searching IMO. They would have been 'mobbed'by reporters.
I don't think anything just stated the facts, you can't just read people's mindsets and situations, but their behaviour was odd at certain junctions, for example, the mother was sure immediately her child was abducted but she left her two other babies alone to run to the restaraunt - how was she so sure the abductor (s) were not around the corner and might take the other kids!?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 12, 2015, 11:17:52 PM
How do you suggest they should have conducted their own search?
Should they perhaps have thumped on the Moyes apartment door ... demanded entry ... and start searching under beds and in cupboards?
What about the Fenn apartment? Maybe they should have charged up there ... demanded entry and commenced searching?
If the police had been so minded they might have had the legal right to do so if invited in or if they had cause for suspicion ... they could have roused a magistrate to obtain a search warrant. Distraught parents do not enjoy the privileges law enforcement does nor is it expected for them to do so.
Once a child is discovered missing, cannot be found in obvious places after a search and the authorities called in, the role of the parents is to be on hand to provide intelligence to assist the police organised search.
And another one who assumed my stating the facts was a criticism....but seeing as you asked, yes, they could have knocked on neighbours doors...in fact that's actually what some of them did, go knock on the the Moyes' door and Wilkins door..seeing as they were absent from their flat a neighbour may have heard or seen something....would have potentially been more productive than havng all and sundry traipsing through their apartment contaminating and interfering with the crime scene! Which the public prosecutor has told us rendered collection of evidence compromised....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 12, 2015, 11:27:16 PM
And another one who assumed my stating the facts was a criticism....but seeing as you asked, yes, they could have knocked on neighbours doors...in fact that's actually what some of them did, go knock on the the Moyes' door and Wilkins door..seeing as they were absent from their flat a neighbour may have heard or seen something....would have potentially been more productive than havng all and sundry traipsing through their apartment contaminating and interfering with the crime scene! Which the public prosecutor has told us rendered collection of evidence compromised....
It has always puzzled me why Kate didn't check with Tanner to see whether she had Madeleine. Any mother would check every possibility no matter how unlikely before being forced to accept the inevitable.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 12, 2015, 11:33:28 PM
It has always puzzled me why Kate didn't check with Tanner to see whether she had Madeleine. Any mother would check every possibility no matter how unlikely before being forced to accept the inevitable.
Indeed That crossed my mind years ago too Little kids do go awol often though at night is not that common
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 13, 2015, 02:12:39 AM
And a list of people who stated they actually moved any items to check there was nothing behind/in/underneath when they looked in the wardrobes that night...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 13, 2015, 11:44:13 PM
It has always puzzled me why Kate didn't check with Tanner to see whether she had Madeleine. Any mother would check every possibility no matter how unlikely before being forced to accept the inevitable.
I wondered why she didn't go out into the car park to check, either. I believe the answer is - she didn't have the key to the locked front door. Despite the belief the key was apparently on the kitchen counter, I think Gerry had it with him back at the Tapas Bar.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 14, 2015, 01:04:37 AM
And a list of people who stated they actually moved any items to check there was nothing behind/in/underneath when they looked in the wardrobes that night...
Maybe you do a disservice to the GNR officers who searched the apartment that evening. I think their training would have given them a more disciplined approach than a PSP/PJ officer.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 14, 2015, 01:15:50 AM
I wondered why she didn't go out into the car park to check, either. I believe the answer is - she didn't have the key to the locked front door. Despite the belief the key was apparently on the kitchen counter, I think Gerry had it with him back at the Tapas Bar.
Only they said in their statenents the front door was a) Kate NOT locked / b) Gerry probably not locked
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 14, 2015, 01:45:14 AM
Only they said in their statenents the front door was a) Kate NOT locked / b) Gerry probably not locked
When they gave their statements initially no-one could differentiate between the front & the rear door. Gerry's statement of 10th May is also an undeniable mess.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 14, 2015, 02:58:21 PM
Kerry follows up sightings, the McCann's followed up sightings, it is all they can do to search and they don't know where the children are.
Agreed, Lace, they will be studying faces and mannerisms wherever they go.
It is arrant nonsense to suggest that the family members of a missing child are either equipped or should have to mount their own full scale searches while the policing authorities abrogate total responsibility.
**Snip From the start, the military were convinced that Katrice had simply wandered off.
“They thought I hadn’t kept a proper eye on her.
I remember soon after she disappeared, the Royal Military Police came to our married quarters.
They were friendly but I’ve come to wish I’d said nothing.
They asked me whether Katrice liked ducks and I quite innocently said, 'Yes, of course, don’t all children like ducks?’
“Looking back, that seems to have sealed my daughter’s fate.
The Royal Military Police and the local German police decided that she had walked out of the shop and wandered to the nearby river and fallen in and drowned.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9812934/I-just-want-to-know-what-happened-to-my-Katrice.html
I recommend reading that link.
It appears we are now in a "ranking" system for missing children (British children who simply vanish on foreign soil) and how to search for them.
30 years ago the Lees were treated abominably by the authorities and who has heard of Katrice?
24 years ago the Needhams were treated abominably by the authorities but a bit better than the Lee family and communications being more advanced most people have heard of Ben.
8 years ago the McCanns were treated abominably by the authorities but if they were treated a bit better than the two previously mentioned families is a matter of opinion. They were made arguidos in their daughter's disappearance suffering opprobrium as a result which some still berate them with day and daily.
The fact that Madeleine and Ben are well publicised is as a result of the internet age ... the fact that Katrice's father is justified in feeling his child was neglected may also be that thirty years ago there was no internet.
As a result of technology and the use made of it in missing child cases ... there should never be another apparently anonymous Katrice Lee.
There ... that has dealt with the ranking order.
Think about it very carefully.
Circumstances stood in the way of the Lees physically looking for their child.
Circumstances of isolation meant the Needhams had to search the immediate area on their own.
Circumstances of being in the middle of a holiday resort populated with residential and holiday residences made the McCann situation different from the Needhams or the Lees.
Each family faced the same trauma ... each family faced a different situation.
There is something so terribly sad about trying to make capital one family over another by making comparison in situations which apart from the loss of a child ... there can be no comparison and it does disservice to people's suffering to use it as a debating point.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 14, 2015, 03:11:53 PM
Agreed, Lace, they will be studying faces and mannerisms wherever they go.
It is arrant nonsense to suggest that the family members of a missing child are either equipped or should have to mount their own full scale searches while the policing authorities abrogate total responsibility.
**Snip From the start, the military were convinced that Katrice had simply wandered off.
“They thought I hadn’t kept a proper eye on her.
I remember soon after she disappeared, the Royal Military Police came to our married quarters.
They were friendly but I’ve come to wish I’d said nothing.
They asked me whether Katrice liked ducks and I quite innocently said, 'Yes, of course, don’t all children like ducks?’
“Looking back, that seems to have sealed my daughter’s fate.
The Royal Military Police and the local German police decided that she had walked out of the shop and wandered to the nearby river and fallen in and drowned.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9812934/I-just-want-to-know-what-happened-to-my-Katrice.html
I recommend reading that link.
It appears we are now in a "ranking" system for missing children (British children who simply vanish on foreign soil) and how to search for them.
30 years ago the Lees were treated abominably by the authorities and who has heard of Katrice?
24 years ago the Needhams were treated abominably by the authorities but a bit better than the Lee family and communications being more advanced most people have heard of Ben.
8 years ago the McCanns were treated abominably by the authorities but if they were treated a bit better than the two previously mentioned families is a matter of opinion. They were made arguidos in their daughter's disappearance suffering opprobrium as a result which some still berate them with day and daily.
The fact that Madeleine and Ben are well publicised is as a result of the internet age ... the fact that Katrice's father is justified in feeling his child was neglected may also be that thirty years ago there was no internet.
As a result of technology and the use made of it in missing child cases ... there should never be another apparently anonymous Katrice Lee.
There ... that has dealt with the ranking order.
Think about it very carefully.
Circumstances stood in the way of the Lees physically looking for their child.
Circumstances of isolation meant the Needhams had to search the immediate area on their own.
Circumstances of being in the middle of a holiday resort populated with residential and holiday residences made the McCann situation different from the Needhams or the Lees.
Each family faced the same trauma ... each family faced a different situation.
There is something so terribly sad about trying to make capital one family over another by making comparison in situations which apart from the loss of a child ... there can be no comparison and it does disservice to people's suffering to use it as a debating point.
Excellent post - this from the article about missing Katrice jumped out at me and goes a long way I think to explaining the terrible treatment of some other parents of missing children, by the authorities:
"We were treated without empathy or humanity".
This could also be extended to those who enjoy ripping such parents to shreds because these parents didn't behave in the way that the sanctimonious know-it-all commentators believe they should have behaved.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Carana on October 14, 2015, 04:21:55 PM
Agreed, Lace, they will be studying faces and mannerisms wherever they go.
It is arrant nonsense to suggest that the family members of a missing child are either equipped or should have to mount their own full scale searches while the policing authorities abrogate total responsibility.
**Snip From the start, the military were convinced that Katrice had simply wandered off.
“They thought I hadn’t kept a proper eye on her.
I remember soon after she disappeared, the Royal Military Police came to our married quarters.
They were friendly but I’ve come to wish I’d said nothing.
They asked me whether Katrice liked ducks and I quite innocently said, 'Yes, of course, don’t all children like ducks?’
“Looking back, that seems to have sealed my daughter’s fate.
The Royal Military Police and the local German police decided that she had walked out of the shop and wandered to the nearby river and fallen in and drowned.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9812934/I-just-want-to-know-what-happened-to-my-Katrice.html
I recommend reading that link.
It appears we are now in a "ranking" system for missing children (British children who simply vanish on foreign soil) and how to search for them.
30 years ago the Lees were treated abominably by the authorities and who has heard of Katrice?
24 years ago the Needhams were treated abominably by the authorities but a bit better than the Lee family and communications being more advanced most people have heard of Ben.
8 years ago the McCanns were treated abominably by the authorities but if they were treated a bit better than the two previously mentioned families is a matter of opinion. They were made arguidos in their daughter's disappearance suffering opprobrium as a result which some still berate them with day and daily.
The fact that Madeleine and Ben are well publicised is as a result of the internet age ... the fact that Katrice's father is justified in feeling his child was neglected may also be that thirty years ago there was no internet.
As a result of technology and the use made of it in missing child cases ... there should never be another apparently anonymous Katrice Lee.
There ... that has dealt with the ranking order.
Think about it very carefully.
Circumstances stood in the way of the Lees physically looking for their child.
Circumstances of isolation meant the Needhams had to search the immediate area on their own.
Circumstances of being in the middle of a holiday resort populated with residential and holiday residences made the McCann situation different from the Needhams or the Lees.
Each family faced the same trauma ... each family faced a different situation.
There is something so terribly sad about trying to make capital one family over another by making comparison in situations which apart from the loss of a child ... there can be no comparison and it does disservice to people's suffering to use it as a debating point.
Very true.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 14, 2015, 04:25:35 PM
Agreed, Lace, they will be studying faces and mannerisms wherever they go.
It is arrant nonsense to suggest that the family members of a missing child are either equipped or should have to mount their own full scale searches while the policing authorities abrogate total responsibility.
**Snip From the start, the military were convinced that Katrice had simply wandered off.
“They thought I hadn’t kept a proper eye on her.
I remember soon after she disappeared, the Royal Military Police came to our married quarters.
They were friendly but I’ve come to wish I’d said nothing.
They asked me whether Katrice liked ducks and I quite innocently said, 'Yes, of course, don’t all children like ducks?’
“Looking back, that seems to have sealed my daughter’s fate.
The Royal Military Police and the local German police decided that she had walked out of the shop and wandered to the nearby river and fallen in and drowned.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9812934/I-just-want-to-know-what-happened-to-my-Katrice.html
I recommend reading that link.
It appears we are now in a "ranking" system for missing children (British children who simply vanish on foreign soil) and how to search for them.
30 years ago the Lees were treated abominably by the authorities and who has heard of Katrice?
24 years ago the Needhams were treated abominably by the authorities but a bit better than the Lee family and communications being more advanced most people have heard of Ben.
8 years ago the McCanns were treated abominably by the authorities but if they were treated a bit better than the two previously mentioned families is a matter of opinion. They were made arguidos in their daughter's disappearance suffering opprobrium as a result which some still berate them with day and daily.
The fact that Madeleine and Ben are well publicised is as a result of the internet age ... the fact that Katrice's father is justified in feeling his child was neglected may also be that thirty years ago there was no internet.
As a result of technology and the use made of it in missing child cases ... there should never be another apparently anonymous Katrice Lee.
There ... that has dealt with the ranking order.
Think about it very carefully.
Circumstances stood in the way of the Lees physically looking for their child.
Circumstances of isolation meant the Needhams had to search the immediate area on their own.
Circumstances of being in the middle of a holiday resort populated with residential and holiday residences made the McCann situation different from the Needhams or the Lees.
Each family faced the same trauma ... each family faced a different situation.
There is something so terribly sad about trying to make capital one family over another by making comparison in situations which apart from the loss of a child ... there can be no comparison and it does disservice to people's suffering to use it as a debating point.
Excellent post
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 14, 2015, 04:33:43 PM
Excellent post - this from the article about missing Katrice jumped out at me and goes a long way I think to explaining the terrible treatment of some other parents of missing children, by the authorities:
"We were treated without empathy or humanity".
This could also be extended to those who enjoy ripping such parents to shreds because these parents didn't behave in the way that the sanctimonious know-it-all commentators believe they should have behaved.
And meanwhile back on topic. Reading the effort the male members of the Needham family put into searching for Ben right from the time he went missing makes Gerry's limited efforts seem even more lack lustre than they first seemed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 14, 2015, 04:41:01 PM
Agreed, Lace, they will be studying faces and mannerisms wherever they go.
It is arrant nonsense to suggest that the family members of a missing child are either equipped or should have to mount their own full scale searches while the policing authorities abrogate total responsibility.
**Snip From the start, the military were convinced that Katrice had simply wandered off.
“They thought I hadn’t kept a proper eye on her.
I remember soon after she disappeared, the Royal Military Police came to our married quarters.
They were friendly but I’ve come to wish I’d said nothing.
They asked me whether Katrice liked ducks and I quite innocently said, 'Yes, of course, don’t all children like ducks?’
“Looking back, that seems to have sealed my daughter’s fate.
The Royal Military Police and the local German police decided that she had walked out of the shop and wandered to the nearby river and fallen in and drowned.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9812934/I-just-want-to-know-what-happened-to-my-Katrice.html
I recommend reading that link.
It appears we are now in a "ranking" system for missing children (British children who simply vanish on foreign soil) and how to search for them.
30 years ago the Lees were treated abominably by the authorities and who has heard of Katrice?
24 years ago the Needhams were treated abominably by the authorities but a bit better than the Lee family and communications being more advanced most people have heard of Ben.
8 years ago the McCanns were treated abominably by the authorities but if they were treated a bit better than the two previously mentioned families is a matter of opinion. They were made arguidos in their daughter's disappearance suffering opprobrium as a result which some still berate them with day and daily.
The fact that Madeleine and Ben are well publicised is as a result of the internet age ... the fact that Katrice's father is justified in feeling his child was neglected may also be that thirty years ago there was no internet.
As a result of technology and the use made of it in missing child cases ... there should never be another apparently anonymous Katrice Lee.
There ... that has dealt with the ranking order.
Think about it very carefully.
Circumstances stood in the way of the Lees physically looking for their child.
Circumstances of isolation meant the Needhams had to search the immediate area on their own.
Circumstances of being in the middle of a holiday resort populated with residential and holiday residences made the McCann situation different from the Needhams or the Lees.
Each family faced the same trauma ... each family faced a different situation.
There is something so terribly sad about trying to make capital one family over another by making comparison in situations which apart from the loss of a child ... there can be no comparison and it does disservice to people's suffering to use it as a debating point.
Yet still no determination of who removed Madeleine from the apartment.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 14, 2015, 04:45:21 PM
That Gerry, or indeed the rest of the males in his group, made any more than a token search in the hours after Madeleine's disappearance is one of the more odd aspects of this case. There is nothing wrong in illustrating just how odd their behaviour was.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 14, 2015, 05:05:28 PM
Agreed, Lace, they will be studying faces and mannerisms wherever they go.
It is arrant nonsense to suggest that the family members of a missing child are either equipped or should have to mount their own full scale searches while the policing authorities abrogate total responsibility.
**Snip From the start, the military were convinced that Katrice had simply wandered off.
“They thought I hadn’t kept a proper eye on her.
I remember soon after she disappeared, the Royal Military Police came to our married quarters.
They were friendly but I’ve come to wish I’d said nothing.
They asked me whether Katrice liked ducks and I quite innocently said, 'Yes, of course, don’t all children like ducks?’
“Looking back, that seems to have sealed my daughter’s fate.
The Royal Military Police and the local German police decided that she had walked out of the shop and wandered to the nearby river and fallen in and drowned.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9812934/I-just-want-to-know-what-happened-to-my-Katrice.html
I recommend reading that link.
It appears we are now in a "ranking" system for missing children (British children who simply vanish on foreign soil) and how to search for them.
30 years ago the Lees were treated abominably by the authorities and who has heard of Katrice?
24 years ago the Needhams were treated abominably by the authorities but a bit better than the Lee family and communications being more advanced most people have heard of Ben.
8 years ago the McCanns were treated abominably by the authorities but if they were treated a bit better than the two previously mentioned families is a matter of opinion. They were made arguidos in their daughter's disappearance suffering opprobrium as a result which some still berate them with day and daily.
The fact that Madeleine and Ben are well publicised is as a result of the internet age ... the fact that Katrice's father is justified in feeling his child was neglected may also be that thirty years ago there was no internet.
As a result of technology and the use made of it in missing child cases ... there should never be another apparently anonymous Katrice Lee.
There ... that has dealt with the ranking order.
Think about it very carefully.
Circumstances stood in the way of the Lees physically looking for their child.
Circumstances of isolation meant the Needhams had to search the immediate area on their own.
Circumstances of being in the middle of a holiday resort populated with residential and holiday residences made the McCann situation different from the Needhams or the Lees.
Each family faced the same trauma ... each family faced a different situation.
There is something so terribly sad about trying to make capital one family over another by making comparison in situations which apart from the loss of a child ... there can be no comparison and it does disservice to people's suffering to use it as a debating point.
That's an excellent and very sobering post, Brietta.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 14, 2015, 05:22:11 PM
Faithlilly has accused Gerry McCann and the other male friends of doing no more than a token search.
Could you describe this "token search" & how long it lasted?
How long should the search have lasted and what should it have entailed for it not to fall into the classification of 'token'?
By only conducting a "token" (by the "sceptic" definition of the word) search what inferences can we draw if any from this so-called odd behaviour?
Is this "token" searching by Mr McCann and his friends unprecedentedly odd behaviour in the annals of missing children cases?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 14, 2015, 06:55:02 PM
Faithlilly has accused Gerry McCann and the other male friends of doing no more than a token search.
Could you describe this "token search" & how long it lasted?
How long should the search have lasted and what should it have entailed for it not to fall into the classification of 'token'?
By only conducting a "token" (by the "sceptic" definition of the word) what inferences can we draw if any from this so-called odd behaviour?
Is this "token" searching by Mr McCann and his friends unprecedentedly odd behaviour in the annals of missing children cases?
Personally, I would classify the searching done by the T9 as both token and extremely odd.
Kate should have been out the front door of 5A in a flash and wasn't.
Gerry seems to have searched in the Tapas area, which begs the question as to why he might have thought an abducted child should be in the area the T9 had come from.
The crunchy bit is the Tanner sighting. Tanner supposedly told the police about this soon after they turned up, and that was when Gerry learned of it. Personally, I would have had the men-folk head in that direction as soon as the info surfaced. That search never happened.
And just to be crystal clear, this makes the T9 guilty of no more than very odd behaviour.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 14, 2015, 07:01:56 PM
Personally, I would classify the searching done by the T9 as both token and extremely odd.
Kate should have been out the front door of 5A in a flash and wasn't.
Gerry seems to have searched in the Tapas area, which begs the question as to why he might have thought an abducted child should be in the area the T9 had come from.
The crunchy bit is the Tanner sighting. Tanner supposedly told the police about this soon after they turned up, and that was when Gerry learned of it. Personally, I would have had the men-folk head in that direction as soon as the info surfaced. That search never happened.
And just to be crystal clear, this makes the T9 guilty of no more than very odd behaviour.
Thanks for your response, which doesn't really directly answer most of my questions. Interesting that none of this "very odd" searching behaviour attracted any close questioning by the PJ when they had the chance during the arguido questioning, isn't it? Do you find that odd too?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 14, 2015, 08:34:01 PM
Personally, I would classify the searching done by the T9 as both token and extremely odd.
Kate should have been out the front door of 5A in a flash and wasn't.
Gerry seems to have searched in the Tapas area, which begs the question as to why he might have thought an abducted child should be in the area the T9 had come from.
The crunchy bit is the Tanner sighting. Tanner supposedly told the police about this soon after they turned up, and that was when Gerry learned of it. Personally, I would have had the men-folk head in that direction as soon as the info surfaced. That search never happened.
And just to be crystal clear, this makes the T9 guilty of no more than very odd behaviour.
Some very excellent observations. To be fair they all had the luxury that half the village were out all night searching and then we had the mother complaining whilst never searchng at all that night that on going out the next morning was horrified that no one was out searching. Well, people had to sleep. They continued the next day, some IIRC taking time off work/cancelling holidays to do so.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on October 14, 2015, 08:56:13 PM
Some very excellent observations. To be fair they all had the luxury that half the village were out all night searching and then we had the mother complaining whilst never searchng at all that night that on going out the next morning was horrified that no one was out searching. Well, people had to sleep. They continued the next day, some IIRC taking time off work/cancelling holidays to do so.
In England, relatives of missing loved-ones are not actively discouraged from joining searches for nothing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 14, 2015, 08:57:37 PM
Maybe it was the double negative that confused you?
In England, relatives of missing loved-one are actively discouraged from joining searches.
So who discouraged the parents in Portugal from going out to look for their first born? And of course that was not the sum of my post or SIL's, perhaps you might like to spend a minute or two coming up with a plausible comment/ answer to her very pertinent observations
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 14, 2015, 09:06:39 PM
The woman who gave permission for the property to be searched is Robert Murat's cousin; that may have some bearing on it. Nothing was found though it seems.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 15, 2015, 06:02:02 PM
The woman who gave permission for the property to be searched is Robert Murat's cousin; that may have some bearing on it. Nothing was found though it seems.
Nothing was found.
But a quick glance at the photographs taken at the time gives an indication of what the PJ were up against with regard to searching some of the larger villas and the surrounding wasteland.
There was little chance of finding anything in that or similar properties without either lots of luck or specific intelligence to inform them exactly where and what they should be looking at.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 15, 2015, 06:16:27 PM
But a quick glance at the photographs taken at the time gives an indication of what the PJ were up against with regard to searching some of the larger villas and the surrounding wasteland.
There was little chance of finding anything in that or similar properties without either lots of luck or specific intelligence to inform them exactly where and what they should be looking at.
Or maybe they realised early doors they had been given a bum steer and the game wasn't worth the candle ? Read the archiving report.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 15, 2015, 07:30:05 PM
I think its ridiculous to suggest the mccanns should physically search...its the job of the professionals.....they have done far more by persuading SY to get involved
That must be one of the most ridiculous replies I've ever seen to the question of searching for a missing child. Every parent of a missing child goes out searching if they are able to but the McCanns thought going jogging was a better use of their time.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 15, 2015, 07:32:39 PM
That must be one of the most ridiculous replies I've ever seen to the question of searching for a missing child. Every parent of a missing child goes out searching if they are able to but the McCanns thought going jogging was a better use of their time.
Well said Angelo. 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 15, 2015, 07:50:57 PM
The McCanns have had every opportunity to go searching for their daughter since she disappeared in 2007 but have not done so. They could have spent a lot more time in Portugal promoting the disappearance but again chose not to.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 15, 2015, 08:44:23 PM
My post was factually correct in my opinion And that's all any of us can post I also understand why they went jogging Makes perfect sense to me If you don't understand Fine
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 15, 2015, 08:47:27 PM
Your post was factually incorrect. The McCanns have had every opportunity to go searching for their daughter since she disappeared in 2007 but have not done so. They could have spent a lot more time in Portugal promoting the disappearance but again chose not to.
They are not welcome in Portugal due to the lies told by amaral
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 15, 2015, 08:48:13 PM
My post was factually correct in my opinion And that's all any of us can post I also understand why they went jogging Makes perfect sense to me If you don't understand Fine
There is one explanation why they went jogging on their own up around the cliff tops but it isn't the one you are suggesting.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 15, 2015, 08:52:36 PM
That must be one of the most stupid replies I've ever seen to the question of searching for a missing child. Every parent of a missing child goes out searching if they are able to but the McCanns thought going jogging was a better use of their time.
So it's acceptable to describe a post as stupid I must remember this when replying to posts
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 15, 2015, 10:38:00 PM
Are you saying the PJ were not looking for Madeleine McCann?
Err no! the response was to a post about searching Robert Murat's cousins house. That turned out to be a gold mine full of pyrites. Unless of course you believe the PJ got it wrong wrt Mr Murat.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 15, 2015, 10:40:58 PM
That must be one of the most stupid replies I've ever seen to the question of searching for a missing child. Every parent of a missing child goes out searching if they are able to but the McCanns thought going jogging was a better use of their time.
What a rude reply.
April Jones' parents didn't search after the police were called. IMO after the press arrived it was impossible for the McCanns to go out and about in PdL. They would have been mobbed on sight.
What was wrong with the McCanns jogging? It's therapeutic apart from anything else. Do you think they should have stayed cooped up in their apartment 24/7? They weren't at home in the UK where things would have been completely different.
As for them returning to Portugal to search - as I mentioned before - Kate has been back several times - how do you know she didn't search?
In a previous post I pointed out the predictable reaction from people such as yourself if the McCanns had been regularly jetting off to Portugal. I also pointed out that physical searching, when you don't even know whether your missing child is still in the same country, is the most unproductive and financially wasteful method of searching - and is not what the experts advise in order to give your child the best chance of being found But as usual you did not reply to any of the points I made. Very telling IMO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 15, 2015, 10:52:15 PM
April Jones' parents didn't search after the police were called. IMO after the press arrived it was impossible for the McCanns to go out and about in PdL. They would have been mobbed on sight.
What was wrong with the McCanns jogging? It's therapeutic apart from anything else. Do you think they should have stayed cooped up in their apartment 24/7? They weren't at home in the UK where things would have been completely different.
As for them returning to Portugal to search - as I mentioned before - Kate has been back several times - how do you know she didn't search?
In a previous post I pointed out the predictable reaction from people such as yourself if the McCanns had been regularly jetting off to Portugal. I also pointed out that physical searching, when you don't even know whether your missing child is still in the same country, is the most unproductive and financially wasteful method of searching - and is not what the experts advise in order to give your child the best chance of being found But as usual you did not reply to any of the points I made. Very telling IMO
First of all you claim it was impossible for the McCanns to go out alone and then you attempt to justify their jogging which for the most part was undertaken whilst alone. Which one is it Benice?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on October 15, 2015, 11:05:04 PM
The first and most natural thing for the parents of any missing child is to search for them. This usually happens even before police are called as occurred the night Madeleine disappeared. When the police arrive on the scene it is then the parents job to sit down and brief the police as to what happened. Every disappearance is different however but police will not encourage the parents of a missing child to go out searching unless there are specific reasons for doing so. Ultimately, it is the parents call, it is they who decide whether to sit at home or go out and join the searchers.
I know that if it was my kid that I would be out there encouraging searchers no matter how difficult it was or how long it took. Even after ground searches are completed there are many things which can be done in the immediate area or even further afield to keep the search alive.
The one thing you must always accomplish however and that is to keep the police on side. Bringing private investigators into an official search is asking for trouble. The police hate being shadowed, they react badly to criticism and they do not react well to being told how to do their job. The Portuguese police are no different from any other national police organisation, they have their faults and their flaws but cross them at your peril.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 15, 2015, 11:12:03 PM
First of all you claim it was impossible for the McCanns to go out alone and then you attempt to justify their jogging which for the most part was undertaken whilst alone. Which one is it Benice?
IMO it was Clarence Mitchell who came to a mutual arrangement with the press so that the McCanns could go out without being constantly pestered by them Even then - there are many photos of the McCanns out jogging taken by the press - so they were still following them around - even if it was from a distance.
Perhaps you could elaborate on what kind of searching you expected the McCanns to do. Go round knocking on doors asking questions perchance? How could they do that - considering they couldn't speak the language and in any case they couldn't discuss the case with anyone due to the secrecy laws.
Maybe you could also tell us how you know that on Kate's numerous visits to Pdl - which were not advertised in the press - she never searched.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 15, 2015, 11:22:09 PM
The first and most natural thing for the parents of any missing child is to search for them. This usually happens even before police are called as occurred the night Madeleine disappeared. When the police arrive on the scene it is then the parents job to sit down and brief the police as to what happened. Every disappearance is different however but police will not encourage the parents of a missing child to go out searching unless there are specific reasons for doing so. Ultimately, it is the parents call, it is they who decide whether to sit at home or go out and join the searchers.
I know that if it was my kid that I would be out there encouraging searchers no matter how difficult it was or how long it took. Even after ground searches are completed there are many things which can be done in the immediate area or even further afield to keep the search alive.
The one thing you must always accomplish however and that is to keep the police on side. Bringing private investigators into an official search is asking for trouble. The police hate being shadowed, they react badly to criticism and they do not react well to being told how to do their job. The Portuguese police are no different from any other national police organisation, they have their faults and their flaws but cross them at your peril.
The McCanns thought they could beat the police at their own game but it backfired on them big time! Their private investigators merely harassed and antagonized witnesses from Ireland to Germany to Morocco and back. Suing the policeman in charge was the most stupid thing they could ever have done, that lost them the sympathy vote.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 15, 2015, 11:24:20 PM
IMO it was Clarence Mitchell who came to a mutual arrangement with the press so that the McCanns could go out without being constantly pestered by them Even then - there are many photos of the McCanns out jogging taken by the press - so they were still following them around - even if it was from a distance.
Perhaps you could elaborate on what kind of searching you expected the McCanns to do. Go round knocking on doors asking questions perchance? How could they do that - considering they couldn't speak the language and in any case they couldn't discuss the case with anyone due to the secrecy laws.
Maybe you could also tell us how you know that on Kate's numerous visits to Pdl - which were not advertised in the press - she never searched.
the salient point is that as a mother she didn't even venture out....bizarre at best, sugar coat it as much as you like and bring in as many excuses as you desire.....Jane Hill got the measure when she asked her , as a mother, didn't she feel she had to be out there searchng with all the others, to which she responded, well, yes, but had been working really really hard, OK then, but not runnng out in panic to shout for her first born in the minutes and up to an hour when police were in the scene is not normal IMO but don't worry I KNOW you won't agree and will probably say its abnormal or somethng really ridiculous like that!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 15, 2015, 11:39:12 PM
the salient point is that as a mother she didn't even venture out....bizarre at best, sugar coat it as much as you like and bring in as many excuses as you desire.....Jane Hill got the measure when she asked her , as a mother, didn't she feel she had to be out there searchng with all the others, to which she responded, well, yes, but had been working really really hard, OK then
She did venture out - she and Gerry went out at dawn on the 4th and searched nearby roads etc.
I think Kate would have been more of a distraction than a help in those early days - as everyone searching would have been more interested in her than anything else IMO.
April Jones parents didn't search - and neither did Sandy Davidson's mother - who said she simply couldn't do it because she was too frightened of what she might find. Those parents have never been criticised - so why the McCanns? I don't get it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 15, 2015, 11:39:45 PM
the salient point is that as a mother she didn't even venture out....bizarre at best, sugar coat it as much as you like and bring in as many excuses as you desire.....Jane Hill got the measure when she asked her , as a mother, didn't she feel she had to be out there searchng with all the others, to which she responded, well, yes, but had been working really really hard, OK then, but not runnng out in panic to shout for her first born in the minutes and up to an hour when police were in the scene is not normal IMO but don't worry I KNOW you won't agree and will probably say its abnormal or somethng really ridiculous like that!
Yes the most interesting aspect of Jane Hill's comment is it would seem Jane Hill, who as a reporter must have covered a few missing people cases, also found it strange that the McCanns hadn't searched themselves.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 15, 2015, 11:40:09 PM
the salient point is that as a mother she didn't even venture out....bizarre at best, sugar coat it as much as you like and bring in as many excuses as you desire.....Jane Hill got the measure when she asked her , as a mother, didn't she feel she had to be out there searchng with all the others, to which she responded, well, yes, but had been working really really hard, OK then, but not runnng out in panic to shout for her first born in the minutes and up to an hour when police were in the scene is not normal IMO but don't worry I KNOW you won't agree and will probably say its abnormal or somethng really ridiculous like that!
Another blatant lie.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 15, 2015, 11:44:45 PM
She did venture out - she and Gerry went out at dawn on the 4th and searched nearby roads etc.
I think Kate would have been more of a distraction than a help in those early days - as everyone searching would have been more interested in her than anything else IMO.
April Jones parents didn't search - and neither did Sandy Davidson's mother - who said she simply couldn't do it because she was too frightened of what she might find. Those parents have never been criticised - so why the McCanns? I don't get it.
I think it was obvious from very early on that April Jones had been taken away in a motor vehicle so that probably played a part in the kind of searches that were carried out and her parents participation in them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 15, 2015, 11:45:14 PM
Yes the most interesting aspect of Jane Hill's comment is it would seem Jane Hill, who as a reporter must have covered a few missing people cases, also found it strange that the McCanns hadn't searched themselves.
Where does Jane Hill say she found it strange they didn't search? Another blatant lie!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 15, 2015, 11:50:35 PM
And yet that didn't stop hundreds of townsfolk going out searching the area day and night for many days - but not April's mum, and no doubt there are people who criticise her for it, as there are those who criticise her for letting April play out, nasty b......s that they are!
Then you'd have to take that up with those people who do that Alfie.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 15, 2015, 11:52:31 PM
She did venture out - she and Gerry went out at dawn on the 4th and searched nearby roads etc.
I think Kate would have been more of a distraction than a help in those early days - as everyone searching would have been more interested in her than anything else IMO.
April Jones parents didn't search - and neither did Sandy Davidson's mother - who said she simply couldn't do it because she was too frightened of what she might find. Those parents have never been criticised - so why the McCanns? I don't get it.
I'm not going to argue the toss with you or anyone else here, you find your kid missing and you don't go out shouting and looking for them till hours and hours later/the next day?? But just sit in a bed praying? and ringing people?Give me a break. ! You know very well I was talking abut the immediate aftermath, when the chld could have been anywhere nearby. Seems KM made her mind up immediately there was no point. So don't lecture me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 15, 2015, 11:54:02 PM
By asking the question it suggests she believed it was what most mothers would be doing.
Only in your opinion, you have decided that Jane Hill thinks Kate strange, that is completely biased and not based on anything other than your own "gut feel".
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 15, 2015, 11:55:05 PM
Then you'd have to take that up with those people who do that Alfie.
You've missed my main point. The use of a car in April's abduction did not stop hundreds of people searching the local area, but not April's mum. Why so?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 15, 2015, 11:55:21 PM
Only in your opinion, you have decided that Jane Hill thinks Kate strange, that is completely biased and not based on anything other than your own "gut feel".
So why do you think Jane Hill asked the question Alfie ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 15, 2015, 11:55:51 PM
I'm not going to argue the toss with you or anyone else here, you find your kid missing and you don't go out shouting and looking for them till hours and hours later/the next day?? But just sit in a bed praying? and ringing people?Give me a break. ! You know very well I was talking abut the immediate aftermath, when the chld could have been anywhere nearby. Seems KM made her mind up immediately there was no point. So don't lecture me.
You seem to be of the opinion that Kate did no searching at all. why is that?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 15, 2015, 11:57:44 PM
You've missed my main point. The use of a car in April's abduction did not stop hundreds of people searching the local area, but not April's mum. Why so?
Did local people simply take it on themselves to search ? Were April's male relatives involved in the search ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 16, 2015, 12:03:57 AM
So why do you think Jane Hill asked the question Alfie ?
Because she wanted to know if they'd been joining in the searches personally, why do you suppose it was a loaded question? She asked plenty of questions as part of a 13 minute interview, why did she ask any of those questions? Maybe it's because she's an interviewer... &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 16, 2015, 12:04:50 AM
I think it was obvious from very early on that April Jones had been taken away in a motor vehicle so that probably played a part in the kind of searches that were carried out and her parents participation in them.
Children abducted by car are often dumped not too far away. The police were searching the surrounding area for her - so why couldn't April's parents do the same? As it happens unlike yourself - I have no criticism whatsoever for whatever parents decide to do at such a terrible time in their lives. There are NO rules on how parents of a missing child should react or behave - and we are all different.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 16, 2015, 12:07:55 AM
Faithlilly is assuming that she knows what Jane Hill was thinking and feeling about the McCanns when she interviewed them in 2007. I would say that this is gross arrogance and delusion on her part.
Good night.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 16, 2015, 12:09:26 AM
The first and most natural thing for the parents of any missing child is to search for them. This usually happens even before police are called as occurred the night Madeleine disappeared. When the police arrive on the scene it is then the parents job to sit down and brief the police as to what happened. Every disappearance is different however but police will not encourage the parents of a missing child to go out searching unless there are specific reasons for doing so. Ultimately, it is the parents call, it is they who decide whether to sit at home or go out and join the searchers.
I know that if it was my kid that I would be out there encouraging searchers no matter how difficult it was or how long it took. Even after ground searches are completed there are many things which can be done in the immediate area or even further afield to keep the search alive.
The one thing you must always accomplish however and that is to keep the police on side. Bringing private investigators into an official search is asking for trouble. The police hate being shadowed, they react badly to criticism and they do not react well to being told how to do their job. The Portuguese police are no different from any other national police organisation, they have their faults and their flaws but cross them at your peril.
I think it must be unprecedented for the parents of a missing child to feel the need to bring in private detectives to look for their child.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on October 16, 2015, 12:10:38 AM
You've missed my main point. The use of a car in April's abduction did not stop hundreds of people searching the local area, but not April's mum. Why so?
Because in many oif these situations the mothers are on the verge of a breakdown and so are prescribed medication to calm them so going out is a non starter. Was Kate given medication per chance?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on October 16, 2015, 12:11:57 AM
Like the rest of the McCanns friends and family perhaps Jill Renwick misheard what she was told?
Jill Renwick has known the couple since they all worked together at a Glasgow hospital more than a decade ago. She spoke to Kate at 7am on the morning after Madeleine vanished: "She just said, 'Help me, please help me'. She said, 'We've been searching all night until 4.30am, and then everybody left us'. At that stage there was only one police officer at the door. They didn't know what to do. So I phoned GMTV." http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/02/ukcrime.comment
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on October 16, 2015, 12:13:40 AM
Because she wanted to know if they'd been joining in the searches personally, why do you suppose it was a loaded question? She asked plenty of questions as part of a 13 minute interview, why did she ask any of those questions? Maybe it's because she's an interviewer... &%+((£
By the way she asked it it was obvious the question was loaded.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 16, 2015, 12:17:43 AM
Because in many oif these situations the mothers are on the verge of a breakdown and so are prescribed medication to calm them so going out is a non starter. Was Kate given medication per chance?
It has never been claimed that she was. We know that Gerry wasn't so why we're he and the other Tapas men not out searching after their token half hour 'look' ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 16, 2015, 01:35:10 AM
Because in many oif these situations the mothers are on the verge of a breakdown and so are prescribed medication to calm them so going out is a non starter. Was Kate given medication per chance?
Kate was out searching when everybody had gone to bed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 16, 2015, 08:11:37 AM
Perhaps you could elaborate on what kind of searching you expected the McCanns to do. Go round knocking on doors asking questions perchance? How could they do that - considering they couldn't speak the language and in any case they couldn't discuss the case with anyone due to the secrecy laws.
The best way of making a difference was to be seen in and around the area on a regular basis garnering support from those locals on the ground who know the area and might be able to provide help. Regular meetings with the local police encouraging them in the official search would also have gone a long way to helping the search. This would have become the norm instead of the side show we get every time they new show their faces.
And speaking of Portuguese, have either parent made any attempt to become adequate in the language given they are so intelligent and all? As Madeleine disappeared in Portugal I would have thought learning the language would be a no brainer??
You have made that claim before - but have never provided a cite. Could you do that please?
If it is true, then how do you know they were out for a morning stroll and not searching the beach area?
Here you believe the book and there's nothing about searching the beach &%+((£
Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents. We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona’s apartment, where Sean and Amelie were now up and about. The twins, distracted by having Lily and Scarlett to play with, didn’t mention Madeleine, mercifully.
Many holes to be found is there?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 16, 2015, 02:17:07 PM
Here you believe the book and there's nothing about searching the beach &%+((£
Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents. We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona’s apartment, where Sean and Amelie were now up and about. The twins, distracted by having Lily and Scarlett to play with, didn’t mention Madeleine, mercifully.
Many holes to be found is there?
Remind me, did either of them go to the police station to enquire of the officer in charge as to what progress was being made? Isn't that what a parent normally does in such a situation??
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on October 16, 2015, 03:23:50 PM
Perhaps people were taking a brief rest after being out all night, and that's why the McCanns didn't see anyone searching?
During this night and the following dawn, intensive searches were made by PJ officers, GNR soldiers with sniffer dogs and by members of the public organised in groups, as well as by the parents, groups of friends and employees of the resort. At 02.00 in the morning following the disappearance two sniffer dogs arrived in Praia da Luz and continued searching until the morning, covering the entire perimeter of the Ocean Club resort, urban area, waste ground and the closest homes, all the possible sites where the girl might be having been searched, the search later being extended to the beach area, the PJ duty officer also requested the GNR to issue an order for all officers who were on patrol to be alert and identify cars and persons that were circulating at that time. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 16, 2015, 04:05:33 PM
The McCanns were too traumatised to be involved in the initial searches...I find their behaviour absolutely normal All this criticism is just the usual sceptic McCann bashing.... Quite predictable
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 16, 2015, 04:20:17 PM
The McCanns were too traumatised to be involved in the initial searches...I find their behaviour absolutely normal All this criticism is just the usual sceptic McCann bashing.... Quite predictable
Your post is predictable.
Real parents would have searched
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 16, 2015, 06:19:38 PM
Here you believe the book and there's nothing about searching the beach &%+((£
Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents. We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona’s apartment, where Sean and Amelie were now up and about. The twins, distracted by having Lily and Scarlett to play with, didn’t mention Madeleine, mercifully.
Many holes to be found is there?
Yes I know - which is why I asked Stephen for a cite, as he is the poster who claims the McCanns went for a stroll on the beach the next morning.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 16, 2015, 06:27:35 PM
Remind me, did either of them go to the police station to enquire of the officer in charge as to what progress was being made? Isn't that what a parent normally does in such a situation??
No - they have Family Liason Officers to do that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 16, 2015, 06:49:52 PM
Yes I know - which is why I asked Stephen for a cite, as he is the poster who claims the McCanns went for a stroll on the beach the next morning.
Kate was looking for a priest all night and the church is next to the beach so why didn't she go there? Do you think she didn't because it's not in her book?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 16, 2015, 07:19:16 PM
Not in the first instance they don't. I find it astonishing that their daughter disappears and they don't even go round to the police station at some point the next morning. You would think they were scared??
In fact it sounds awfully like a retake from the Leonor Cipriano case, she delayed contacting the police too!!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 16, 2015, 07:58:32 PM
The McCanns were too traumatised to be involved in the initial searches...I find their behaviour absolutely normal All this criticism is just the usual sceptic McCann bashing.... Quite predictable
Someone had the presence of mind to delete their call histories on their mobiles.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 16, 2015, 08:14:19 PM
Not in the first instance they don't. I find it astonishing that their daughter disappears and they don't even go round to the police station at some point the next morning. You would think they were scared??
In fact it sounds awfully like a retake from the Leonor Cipriano case, she delayed contacting the police too!!
Technically, they did go round to the police station next morning, where next morning was 4 May 2007. They got picked up by the PJ and were taken to the nearest PJ station, in Portimão, where they gave their first statements.
There is no police station in Luz, so they couldn't go to that.
The nearest GNR station is Lagos. I can't tell you for certain whereabouts it is in the town. But I doubt the GNR could have/would have given them an update.
The nearest PJ station is Portimão. I only know of that (from news reports) and where it is 'cos I have trawled through Streetview trying to find it.
I dare say a taxi plus driver would have done the trick, but this was still at the stage when the McCanns were trying to work out who/what the GNR were and ditto the PJ were. Calling a taxi and saying "take me to the nearest police station" would not have worked.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 16, 2015, 08:22:08 PM
Technically, they did go round to the police station next morning, where next morning was 4 May 2007. They got picked up by the PJ and were taken to the nearest PJ station, in Portimão, where they gave their first statements.
There is no police station in Luz, so they couldn't go to that.
The nearest GNR station is Lagos. I can't tell you for certain whereabouts it is in the town. But I doubt the GNR could have/would have given them an update.
The nearest PJ station is Portimão. I only know of that (from news reports) and where it is 'cos I have trawled through Streetview trying to find it.
I dare say a taxi plus driver would have done the trick, but this was still at the stage when the McCanns were trying to work out who/what the GNR were and ditto the PJ were. Calling a taxi and saying "take me to the nearest police station" would not have worked.
Yes, they went to the police station after the police called to pick them up. With so many 'friends' at their beckon call one would have thought they would have got there at first light ready to assist the search?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Admin on October 16, 2015, 08:34:10 PM
Technically, they did go round to the police station next morning, where next morning was 4 May 2007. They got picked up by the PJ and were taken to the nearest PJ station, in Portimão, where they gave their first statements.
There is no police station in Luz, so they couldn't go to that.
The nearest GNR station is Lagos. I can't tell you for certain whereabouts it is in the town. But I doubt the GNR could have/would have given them an update.
The nearest PJ station is Portimão. I only know of that (from news reports) and where it is 'cos I have trawled through Streetview trying to find it.
I dare say a taxi plus driver would have done the trick, but this was still at the stage when the McCanns were trying to work out who/what the GNR were and ditto the PJ were. Calling a taxi and saying "take me to the nearest police station" would not have worked.
The McCanns had both the Ocean Club and the Mark Warner managers at their disposal who were both very familiar with the police regime in the area. It's not as if they were helpless and alone with no one to turn to.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 16, 2015, 11:50:21 PM
Not in the first instance they don't. I find it astonishing that their daughter disappears and they don't even go round to the police station at some point the next morning. You would think they were scared??
In fact it sounds awfully like a retake from the Leonor Cipriano case, she delayed contacting the police too!!
Why would they go to the police station when they had been told by the PJ that they would be back the next morning at 9.00a.m?
IIRC Leanor Cipriano approached a GNR officer whilst she was out searching and was told by him that if her daughter did not return she should go to the police station the next morning and report it. (from memory so am happy to retract if that is not correct)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2015, 12:04:01 AM
Yes, they went to the police station after the police called to pick them up. With so many 'friends' at their beckon call one would have thought they would have got there at first light ready to assist the search?
At first light they were out searching themselves. Why would they travel miles to a police station when by that time they would be aware of the phone no. of the police station concerned and could simply call them?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 17, 2015, 12:47:25 AM
At first light they were out searching themselves. Why would they travel miles to a police station when by that time they would be aware of the phone no. of the police station concerned and could simply call them?
And did they call them ? There is certainly no mention of a phone call in Madeleine.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 17, 2015, 12:58:12 AM
And did they call them ? There is certainly no mention of a phone call in Madeleine.
I'm not sure I understand the criticism of the parents here. A 3 year old had been missing all night & there was not a single officer left on the scene to liaise with?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2015, 09:08:18 AM
At first light they were out searching themselves. Why would they travel miles to a police station when by that time they would be aware of the phone no. of the police station concerned and could simply call them?
It will still cold and dark actually according to Fiona when they left the apartment. First light is less suspicious to the police otherwise they may be thinking why did they go for a search alone in the dark when it was light in another hour.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2015, 09:24:23 AM
It will still cold and dark actually according to Fiona when they left the apartment. First light is less suspicious to the police otherwise they may be thinking why did they go for a search alone in the dark when it was light in another hour.
I don't agree that the police would find anything suspicious in the parents of any missing child going out looking for their daughter at any time during the hours immediately after her disappearance. Whether it was dark or light would have no relevance imo.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2015, 09:35:31 AM
Relevant quote from Kate's book (page 102) in the chapter beginning (Saturday 5th May).
.....we were reassured to see some UK police that day in the shape of three family liaison officers (FLOs) ................................ They came to introduce themselves and to outline their dual role: supporting us and our family and acting as a conduit for the flow of information between us and the PJ. End quote
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2015, 09:51:28 AM
And did they call them ? There is certainly no mention of a phone call in Madeleine.
They had no reason to call them on the morning of the 4th - as they knew they would seeing them in person at 9.00a.m.
Re telephoning the PJ - Guilhermino Encarnacao had given them a telephone no. inviting them to ring at any time and to ask to be put through to him. When they attempted to speak to him they were told it wasn't possible to do that and all they were told was that everything that could be done was being done. And that is all they were told during the next 24 hours. I presume they stopped phoning once the FLO's arrived the next day.
Kate's book - page 96 refers.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 17, 2015, 09:54:52 AM
They searched the area, they searched the apartment, they searched around the apartment, they searched the routes that they had taken with Madeleine that holiday.
It was a foreign country not their local neighbourhood.
They did what NORMAL parents would have done, they waited for the police to arrive.
All this 'they didn't search' is ridiculous, they didn't know the area, they only knew where they had been that week, they searched everywhere they had been that week.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 17, 2015, 09:59:07 AM
The police advised the public searching for April Jones that they should stop searching for her. They didn't want anyone to come upon April, the police are trained for this.
Apart from the trauma of finding a dead child, they need to keep the area free from contamination, they don't want people tramping around the site where the body is found.
Notice they advised the PUBLIC not to search, they didn't want them to find April let alone the parents. The parents were not in the search parties.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2015, 10:06:26 AM
I don't agree that the police would find anything suspicious in the parents of any missing child going out looking for their daughter at any time during the hours immediately after her disappearance. Whether it was dark or light would have no relevance imo.
You don't live in the real world then when they were all alone and former suspects in this case.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
The best way of making a difference was to be seen in and around the area on a regular basis garnering support from those locals on the ground who know the area and might be able to provide help. Regular meetings with the local police encouraging them in the official search would also have gone a long way to helping the search. This would have become the norm instead of the side show we get every time they new show their faces.
And speaking of Portuguese, have either parent made any attempt to become adequate in the language given they are so intelligent and all? As Madeleine disappeared in Portugal I would have thought learning the language would be a no brainer??
Depends what you mean by searching. I don't think the odd visit to the local church counts somehow.
Perhaps as a mod you should remember to make it clear it is only your opinion you are expressing and not facts.
I ask again - how could they speak to any members of the public about this case without breaking the secrecy laws?
You can have no idea what Kate did on her numerous visits to PdL. How do you know that she didn't search? Please back up your claim that she only made a few odd visits to church during those visits.
They may well have picked up a smattering of Portuguese - as I presume Kerry Needham may well have picked up a bit of Greek along the way during the last 23 years. To suggest that learning the language is imperative - as if it's something which can be done in an afternoon almost - is preposterous IMO. And so is the idea that they they should decide to have regular meetings with the PJ to 'encourage' them in the official search. Apart from the fact that they would have no power to arrange that - how insulting to the police to suggest they even needed encouragement in the first place - to do their job.
AIMHO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2015, 10:51:03 AM
You don't live in the real world then when they were all alone and former suspects in this case.
No - I just don't live in conspiracy land.
Neither do I dissect every word spoken in this case. Kate said it was light when they went out to search. It was dawn - and probably not completely light when they left and still a bit murky - but not completely dark. So what?
Anyone who thinks she should have gone into precise detail and given chapter and verse on the EXACT level of light which existed when they went out to search at dawn is taking nitpicking to a whole new level IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 17, 2015, 10:57:13 AM
Neither do I dissect every word spoken in this case. Kate said it was light when they went out to search. It was dawn - and probably not completely light when they left and still a bit murky - but not completely dark. So what?
Anyone who thinks she should have gone into precise detail and given chapter and verse on the EXACT level of light which existed when they went out to search at dawn is taking nitpicking to a whole new level IMO.
So what? They said they were alone. Nobody else was out searching at the time. If you think police trust people who don't answer their questions then you're in for a rude awakening.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 17, 2015, 11:07:18 AM
I'm not sure I understand the criticism of the parents here. A 3 year old had been missing all night & there was not a single officer left on the scene to liaise with?
Not true as Kate makes clear in her book. A police officer I believe also saw Kate and Gerry 'searching' at dawn.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on October 17, 2015, 11:10:21 AM
So what? They said they were alone. Nobody else was out searching at the time. If you think police trust people who don't answer their questions then you're in for a rude awakening.
What questions didn't they answer regarding their own dawn search?
They were alone during their own search as they saw no-one else searching - probably because everyone else who had been searching had long since gone home to bed. Kate was not claiming no-one else searched -she was describing how she felt at that particular time (when they saw no-one else searching for the whole time they were out) - which was completely alone and in despair.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 17, 2015, 11:11:11 AM
They searched the area, they searched the apartment, they searched around the apartment, they searched the routes that they had taken with Madeleine that holiday.
It was a foreign country not their local neighbourhood.
They did what NORMAL parents would have done, they waited for the police to arrive.
All this 'they didn't search' is ridiculous, they didn't know the area, they only knew where they had been that week, they searched everywhere they had been that week.
Why didn't they search in the direction of Tanner's sighting ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on October 17, 2015, 11:34:34 AM
What questions didn't they answer regarding their own dawn search?
They were alone during their own search as they saw no-one else searching - probably because everyone else who had been searching had long since gone home to bed. Kate was not claiming no-one else searched -she was describing how she felt at that particular time (when they saw no-one else searching for the whole time they were out) - which was completely alone and in despair.
I assume they searched between 6am and 7am or thereabouts. At the same time, Kate's phone was very busy, mostly texting. The last time her phone was used previous to this was 4.55am;
6.02.08 am Mum mob calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS
6.04.11 am Kate calls Mum mob (0 seconds) SMS
6.05.29 am Kate calls Amanda home (7.02 minutes)
6.08.17 am Jon Corner calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS
6.18.17 am Kate calls Jon Corner (0 seconds) SMS
6.34.53 am ... calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS
6.35.23 am Kate calls ... (0 seconds) SMS
6.39.38 am Kate calls Jon Corner (0 seconds) SMS
6.47.42 am Jon Corner calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS
6.47.54 am Jon Corner calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS
6.48.05 am Jon Corner calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS
6.59.12 am Jon Corner calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS
6.59.44 am Kate calls Jon Corner (0 seconds) SMS
07.00 am GNR Officer P. J. F. N. saw the McCann couple at about 07.00 alone in the street next to the site where they were stationed.
7.06.06 am Sue and Brian Healy call Gerry (01 seconds) SMS
7.09.04 am John McCann calls Gerry (3.26 minutes)
7.15.19 am Gerry calls Angela Morado UK Consulate (4.51 minutes)
7.23.20 am ... calls Gerry (5.53 minutes)
7.41.14 am Jill mob calls Kate (3.30 minutes)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 17, 2015, 03:09:51 PM
The McCanns had both the Ocean Club and the Mark Warner managers at their disposal who were both very familiar with the police regime in the area. It's not as if they were helpless and alone with no one to turn to.
Mark Warner bought the Ocean Club before Madeleine disappeared. See second statement of George Robin Crossland. That fact, IMO, is key in the disappearance.
The McCanns had been told the PJ would turn up again around 9. (Book?). If that is accurate, asking for an update when it appears the bods in charge are not working on the case makes little sense.
I, personally, would not have been nipping off to Portimão on the off-chance.
However, I would have been knocking on doors in the direction taken by Tannerman. Jez got a very early morning call to see if he could verify Tanner, and I'd have been out in the East trying to find out if anyone else had seen a man + child.
As it happens, I would also have ensured the sniffer dogs deployed that night searched east of 5A re Tannerman/Madeleine. There is nothing in the files to suggest this happened.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 17, 2015, 03:40:19 PM
I ask again - how could they speak to any members of the public about this case without breaking the secrecy laws?
...
I'm in Portugal and I can discuss this case with anyone I choose - that is my right. The McCanns were in the same position until they were made arguidos.
What I cannot do, unfortunately, is investigate, as that is illegal. Which is a great shame, as asking a few simple questions here are there would progress the case faster than SY seems to be doing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on October 17, 2015, 04:02:17 PM
I'm in Portugal and I can discuss this case with anyone I choose - that is my right. The McCanns were in the same position until they were made arguidos.
What I cannot do, unfortunately, is investigate, as that is illegal. Which is a great shame, as asking a few simple questions here are there would progress the case faster than SY seems to be doing.
What I underline is not true.
The investigation was under judicial secrecy from the point the PJ were convinced Madeleine was the victim of crime (unknown).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 17, 2015, 04:04:56 PM
They searched the area, they searched the apartment, they searched around the apartment, they searched the routes that they had taken with Madeleine that holiday.
It was a foreign country not their local neighbourhood.
They did what NORMAL parents would have done, they waited for the police to arrive.
All this 'they didn't search' is ridiculous, they didn't know the area, they only knew where they had been that week, they searched everywhere they had been that week.
Good parents would never have placed their children in such a situation in the first place.
Next, their physical searching was minimal.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 17, 2015, 05:12:24 PM
Why didn't they search in the direction of Tanner's sighting ?
Didn't anyone look along that road?
it would have done no good knocking on doors as if someone who had Madeleine would say 'yes I have her'.
When Kerry Needham knocked on doors looking for Ben, because of the language barrier they slammed the door in her face because they didn't know what she wanted.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 17, 2015, 05:14:46 PM
Good parents would never have placed their children in such a situation in the first place.
Next, their physical searching was minimal.
Thought we were discussing the searching Stephen not the parents leaving the children.
You think their physical searching was minimal, but they searched everywhere that Madeleine may have gone then they waited for the police which is all they could do.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 17, 2015, 05:51:18 PM
Thought we were discussing the searching Stephen not the parents leaving the children.
You think their physical searching was minimal, but they searched everywhere that Madeleine may have gone then they waited for the police which is all they could do.
One brief search and that was that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 17, 2015, 06:38:27 PM
it would have done no good knocking on doors as if someone who had Madeleine would say 'yes I have her'.
When Kerry Needham knocked on doors looking for Ben, because of the language barrier they slammed the door in her face because they didn't know what she wanted.
Bit of on own goal that Lace !! At least Kerry tried. At least she made an effort to actually physically search for her child.
As to if anyone looked along the road taken by Tannerman, no one claimed they did.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 17, 2015, 06:45:16 PM
it would have done no good knocking on doors as if someone who had Madeleine would say 'yes I have her'.
When Kerry Needham knocked on doors looking for Ben, because of the language barrier they slammed the door in her face because they didn't know what she wanted.
The T9 experience of Luz to that point was that most if not all people spoke English.
Check in was English. Dining at the Millennium and Tapas was English. Booking the Tapas was English. The other guests in the OC spoke English. The ice cream seller spoke English. The sunglasses seller spoke English.
As it happens, every school child in Portugal learns English for 8 years, but the T9 could hardly know that.
And does it matter? Take Jane with you when you knock on doors, or simply use her description to rule people in/out. Plus, what I would be looking for was someone who could tell me they had seen a man with a child further east of 5A, so I got more info on where he headed.
This was not having your holiday cash lifted, it was having your child lifted. Would you NOT have knocked on doors?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 17, 2015, 06:50:47 PM
Bit of on own goal that Lace !! At least Kerry tried. At least she made an effort to actually physically search for her child.
As to if anyone looked along the road taken by Tannerman, no one claimed they did.
To be accurate, Matthew Oldfield seems to have headed that way when he went to the Millennium. However, I'm not sure if he knew about Tannerman at the time. He simply went on the basis that Madeleine had been to the Millennium.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 17, 2015, 07:14:11 PM
To be accurate, Matthew Oldfield seems to have headed that way when he went to the Millennium. However, I'm not sure if he knew about Tannerman at the time. He simply went on the basis that Madeleine had been to the Millennium.
When the family returned from dinner at Millenium on Sat evening they headed west on R Ramalhete, turned south on Rua 1 Maio, then turned east on Rua Silva. This circuitous route was because they missed a turn and got lost (it's in the files). If the child wandered on evening 3rd May by retracing backwards that remembered route, she would have gone west on Rua Silva, north on Rua 1 Maio, then east on Rua Ramalhete.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 17, 2015, 07:28:47 PM
When the family returned from dinner at Millenium on Sat evening they headed west on R Ramalhete, turned south on Rua 1 Maio, then turned east on Rua Silva. This circuitous route was because they missed a turn and got lost (it's in the files). If the child wandered on evening 3rd May by retracing backwards that remembered route, she would have gone west on Rua Silva, north on Rua 1 Maio, then east on Rua Ramalhete.
I wasn't aware of that. I don't know whether Matthew was aware of it.
However, the McCanns had dinner at the Millennium, plus breakfast the next day, before they settled on Baptista for breakfast and Tapas for dinner. It is a presumption, but that suggests 3 times by the short route versus 1 by a longer route.
Matthew does not state which route he took, merely that he went to the Millennium. It is my assumption that he headed east, given that by then Matthew should have worked out the short route. And if he did, he was on the Tannerman route, though he does not appear to have had Tannerman on his mind.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 17, 2015, 07:51:42 PM
Bit of on own goal that Lace !! At least Kerry tried. At least she made an effort to actually physically search for her child.
As to if anyone looked along the road taken by Tannerman, no one claimed they did.
Kerry searched the route where she thought Ben may have wandered, the McCann's and friends searched the routes where they thought Madeleine may have wandered.
It's unfair to put the two families up against each other as you are doing Faithlily, both families searched for their child.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 17, 2015, 08:12:08 PM
Kerry searched the route where she thought Ben may have wandered, the McCann's and friends searched the routes where they thought Madeleine may have wandered.
It's unfair to put the two families up against each other as you are doing Faithlily, both families searched for their child.
That's simply not true Lace.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 17, 2015, 09:58:25 PM
I wasn't aware of that. I don't know whether Matthew was aware of it.
However, the McCanns had dinner at the Millennium, plus breakfast the next day, before they settled on Baptista for breakfast and Tapas for dinner. It is a presumption, but that suggests 3 times by the short route versus 1 by a longer route.
Matthew does not state which route he took, merely that he went to the Millennium. It is my assumption that he headed east, given that by then Matthew should have worked out the short route. And if he did, he was on the Tannerman route, though he does not appear to have had Tannerman on his mind.
IMO the missing child never went to Millenium for breakfast, and the only time she went there was Sat evening for dinner, when they walked there via the direct road route, however they got lost on the way back: "About an hour later they finished dinner, and returned, equally walking, by the same route, though going wrong in one of the streets where they should have turned left, ending up only turning only at the next street." (GM statement 10 May). The only way to interpret that is - when they were walking home along Rua Ramalhete they missed the left onto Rua Silva and so took the next left onto Rua 1 Maio and then left onto other end of Rua Silva. Yes MO in the early search took the direct road route to Millenium, however IMO if the child wandered towards Millenium she would probably have retraced backwards the longer "got lost" route.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 18, 2015, 01:13:11 AM
When the two PJ officers arrived, they did not search the apartment.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 18, 2015, 02:12:02 AM
IMO the missing child never went to Millenium for breakfast, and the only time she went there was Sat evening for dinner, when they walked there via the direct road route, however they got lost on the way back: "About an hour later they finished dinner, and returned, equally walking, by the same route, though going wrong in one of the streets where they should have turned left, ending up only turning only at the next street." (GM statement 10 May). The only way to interpret that is - when they were walking home along Rua Ramalhete they missed the left onto Rua Silva and so took the next left onto Rua 1 Maio and then left onto other end of Rua Silva. Yes MO in the early search took the direct road route to Millenium, however IMO if the child wandered towards Millenium she would probably have retraced backwards the longer "got lost" route.
IMO the mssing child never even tried to walk to the millennium ....she either never left that flat or if she did and it's a very big if, she would have gone tapas way
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 18, 2015, 02:18:54 AM
When the two PJ officers arrived, they did not search the apartment.
One of them was the CSI officer.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BARREIRAS.htm *snipped* After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents.
The witness carried out finger print testing on the inside of the bedroom window, where the girl had been sleeping, leaving other examinations for the following day given that on that occasion these tests could not be carried out in the best technical conditions. For this reason, the apartments and the surrounding area were sealed off, watched over by the GNR officers who remained on site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Are you suggesting that Madeleine was still in the apartment after it was secured?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 18, 2015, 09:08:05 AM
Kate ran screaming from the apartment when she found Madeleine missing, they all ran back searched the apartment again, searched all around the apartment, Gerry was seen searching around the pool area, they ran around like headless chickens, Kate screaming Madeleine's name. Both crying distraught, the friends of Gerry and Kate said it was terrible to witness it.
Friends searched the whole area, whilst Gerry and Kate waited for the police to arrive, Gerry falling to his knees with relief that the police had finally come.
Are you saying, that they are nasty uncaring parents, who didn't bother to search and didn't care that their child was missing?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 18, 2015, 01:19:32 PM
both are true...the parents searched and the sceptics have tried to cause friction between the families
They never miss a chance davel, it's terrible that they try and make out that Kerry did more for Ben than the McCann's did for Madeleine.
The family of Ben, thought Ben had gone off with Kerry's brother on his bike, so it was ages before they actually knew Ben was missing.
All Kerry could do really was go the way she thought Ben may have toddled, she knocked on doors along the way, most just shut the door in her face I think one stayed long enough to actually realise what she wanted.
After that it was a case of following up leads.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 18, 2015, 01:33:04 PM
They never miss a chance davel, it's terrible that they try and make out that Kerry did more for Ben than the McCann's did for Madeleine.
The family of Ben, thought Ben had gone off with Kerry's brother on his bike, so it was ages before they actually knew Ben was missing.
All Kerry could do really was go the way she thought Ben may have toddled, she knocked on doors along the way, most just shut the door in her face I think one stayed long enough to actually realise what she wanted.
After that it was a case of following up leads.
because there is no real evidence against the mccanns all they have is innuendo
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 18, 2015, 01:35:38 PM
They never miss a chance davel, it's terrible that they try and make out that Kerry did more for Ben than the McCann's did for Madeleine.
The family of Ben, thought Ben had gone off with Kerry's brother on his bike, so it was ages before they actually knew Ben was missing.
All Kerry could do really was go the way she thought Ben may have toddled, she knocked on doors along the way, most just shut the door in her face I think one stayed long enough to actually realise what she wanted.
After that it was a case of following up leads.
The Needham's searched for Ben and still are.
The mccanns typed a lot, and got other people to search, and of course, let the tax payer foot the bill for their 'responsible parenting skills'.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 18, 2015, 01:38:05 PM
The mccanns typed a lot, and got other people to search, and of course, let the tax payer foot the bill for their 'responsible parenting skills'.
Grange is about justice for maddie...I thought that's what everyone wanted...it seems not...it seems now just about bashing the parents....almost every thread just turns into a bash fest..
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 18, 2015, 01:46:48 PM
IMO the missing child never went to Millenium for breakfast, and the only time she went there was Sat evening for dinner, when they walked there via the direct road route, however they got lost on the way back: "About an hour later they finished dinner, and returned, equally walking, by the same route, though going wrong in one of the streets where they should have turned left, ending up only turning only at the next street." (GM statement 10 May). The only way to interpret that is - when they were walking home along Rua Ramalhete they missed the left onto Rua Silva and so took the next left onto Rua 1 Maio and then left onto other end of Rua Silva. Yes MO in the early search took the direct road route to Millenium, however IMO if the child wandered towards Millenium she would probably have retraced backwards the longer "got lost" route.
Gerry's statement of 10 May 2007 - "The following day (Sunday), the children woke up at 08h00, the deponent and his wife having woken up at around 07h30. They got dressed and at about 08h40 they left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as on the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00."
It's in Fiona's rogatory also, where she explains that the McCanns had problems with the twins walking. IIRC, the twins were carried the night before, while Madeleine walked.
The road to the Mirage (before one turns off for the Millennium) is normally fairly busy due to the Luz one-way traffic scheme, though that particular road is two-way. Personally, I would not have any child of ages 2 to 4 walking beside that road unless I had a firm grip of their hand.
But as I said earlier, I think Matthew was simply checking a place Madeleine had visited, not necessarily checking Tannerman route or being aware of which routes Madeleine had used on her visits to the Millennium.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 18, 2015, 03:10:55 PM
Thanks ShiningInLuz so she did breakfast there Sun morning.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 18, 2015, 03:21:04 PM
The mccanns typed a lot, and got other people to search, and of course, let the tax payer foot the bill for their 'responsible parenting skills'.
The McCann's are still searching too Stephen.
When Ben went missing there wasn't the media coverage the McCann's had, no facebook, no twitter no internet.
The McCann's were lucky enough to have a fund for Madeleine, therefore was able to set up the No Stone Unturned where people could report sightings. Kerry has a fund too now for Ben. The only way Kerry can search for Ben is through sightings or tip offs.
Kerry has said herself if she was in the McCann's shoes she would have done exactly the same.
All this nonsense about the McCann's not searching is just that nonsense.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on October 18, 2015, 03:31:10 PM
How is having someone else manage a social media page and a website searching?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 18, 2015, 03:43:00 PM
The searching that night covered everywhere radially outward from the apartment perimeter and found nothing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on October 18, 2015, 03:46:50 PM
Thanks ShiningInLuz so she did breakfast there Sun morning.
There is a person at the Millennium whose job it is to check people arriving for breakfast as they enter. Some have to pay, others get a free breakfast as part of their 'package'. She didn't work on Sunday or Monday, but she was there Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. This is what she said;
When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.
She says that breakfast was served between 08.00 and 10.00 and that the McCanns would arrive between 08.00 and 09.00.
She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CECILIA-DFC.htm
Janet Kennedy made the same remark about Madeleine and Gerry;
Madeleine was very close to Gerry; she was always at his side. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on October 18, 2015, 03:47:00 PM
How is having someone else manage a social media page and a website searching?
A website that hasn't been updated in an age and a social media page that considers, from its prominence, a video of Kate and Gerry whining outside the court in Lisbon more important than the efits of the man suspected of abducting their daughter.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 18, 2015, 04:05:38 PM
@ShiningInLuz
Do you know the exact whereabouts of a building called Urbanizacao Ramalhete, near the Ocean Club?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 18, 2015, 04:50:34 PM
Do you know the exact whereabouts of a building called Urbanizacao Ramalhete, near the Ocean Club?
Not off the top of my head, no.
However, building is edificio, whereas urbanização means urbanisation, or a group of buildings.
I can see that lote 2, 3, and 4 have businesses registered at them, but that is about the sum of what I have found thus far. Do you have any more clues?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 18, 2015, 05:03:39 PM
Let's hear how the search should have been conducted then. Let's hear from the McCann critics all about what actual, physical searching you would do if your child had disappeared thousands of miles from your home, how far you would extend out from the place she disappeared from, how long you would spend, etc, in each of the following:
1) in the hour after your child disappaeared. 2) in the day after your child disappeared. 3) in the week after your child disappeared 4) in the month after your child disappeared. 5)in the year after your child disappeared. 6) 2 years after your child disappeared. 7) 5 years after your child disappeared. 8) 10 years after your child disappeared.
We have heard from some of you that you would never give up looking, that you would have remained in Portugal until the child was found, blah blah blah so let's collectively write up the definitive guide to proper parental searching, for future parents of missing kids.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 18, 2015, 05:07:57 PM
However, building is edificio, whereas urbanização means urbanisation, or a group of buildings.
I can see that lote 2, 3, and 4 have businesses registered at them, but that is about the sum of what I have found thus far. Do you have any more clues?
For you & Pegasus - Casa H, that's all I have.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on October 18, 2015, 05:12:00 PM
Why? It's not me making the claim. Promoting their cause via the internet might keep their name in the media, but is not actually searching.
Tell us what they should be doing then. See my post above. If successfully keeping their child's name in the collective conscience for 8+ years is not enough, tell us which doors they should be knocking on, which drains they should be digging up, which bin lids they should be lifting, and how many hours a day, week, month and year they should be doing it. It's no good whingeing about their lack of physical searching without at the same time being clear about what you expect of parents of missing children, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade down the line.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on October 18, 2015, 05:28:45 PM
Let's hear how the search should have been conducted then. Let's hear from the McCann critics all about what actual, physical searching you would do if your child had disappeared thousands of miles from your home, how far you would extend out from the place she disappeared from, how long you would spend, etc, in each of the following:
1) in the hour after your child disappaeared. 2) in the day after your child disappeared. 3) in the week after your child disappeared 4) in the month after your child disappeared. 5)in the year after your child disappeared. 6) 2 years after your child disappeared. 7) 5 years after your child disappeared. 8) 10 years after your child disappeared.
We have heard from some of you that you would never give up looking, that you would have remained in Portugal until the child was found, blah blah blah so let's collectively write up the definitive guide to proper parental searching, for future parents of missing kids.
Shall we start off with what parents shouldn't do when searching :
1) Only give your PIs who have been tasked with searching for your child access to part of the investigation files ( David Edgar's evidence in Lisbon ) 2) When your PIs have identified a likely suspect put all your money and energy into investigating a sighting they say has no credibility. 3) When arguably one of the finest police forces in the world have identified a person of interest don't make the efits of that person less important than a sighting that has already been ruled out. 4) Bury the efits of the identified person of interest behind an anonymous button on your Facebook page. 5) Leave the website connected to your campaign unmanned for months or years at a time. 6) Don't use money donated to fund the search on anything but the actual search. 7) Don't be less than open and cooperative with the police force investigating your child's disappearance.
I'm sure there's more but I think that's enough to be going on with.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 18, 2015, 05:55:13 PM
Let's hear how the search should have been conducted then. Let's hear from the McCann critics all about what actual, physical searching you would do if your child had disappeared thousands of miles from your home, how far you would extend out from the place she disappeared from, how long you would spend, etc, in each of the following:
1) in the hour after your child disappaeared. 2) in the day after your child disappeared. 3) in the week after your child disappeared 4) in the month after your child disappeared. 5)in the year after your child disappeared. 6) 2 years after your child disappeared. 7) 5 years after your child disappeared. 8) 10 years after your child disappeared.
We have heard from some of you that you would never give up looking, that you would have remained in Portugal until the child was found, blah blah blah so let's collectively write up the definitive guide to proper parental searching, for future parents of missing kids.
Actual physical searching on site. 1. Everywhere I could conceive of the child being in and around of the apartment and it's immediate locality. Call the cops and notify reception. Continue searching areas with which she would be familiar until the cops arrive. Give the cops all the info they asked for then butt out of the search and let the cops get on with it. 2,3,4,5,6 & 7 nothing unless the cops or media came up with a credible sighting. 8. I wouldn't reach 8. After 7 years sadly I would apply for death in absentia.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 18, 2015, 06:06:44 PM
Actual physical searching on site. 1. Everywhere I could conceive of the child being in and around of the apartment and it's immediate locality. Call the cops and notify reception. Continue searching areas with which she would be familiar until the cops arrive. Give the cops all the info they asked for then butt out of the search and let the cops get on with it. 2,3,4,5,6 & 7 nothing unless the cops or media came up with a credible sighting. 8. I wouldn't reach 8. After 7 years sadly I would apply for death in absentia.
So, pretty much everything the McCanns did then.
ETa why would you apply for death in absntia?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 18, 2015, 06:08:07 PM
Shall we start off with what parents shouldn't do when searching :
1) Only give your PIs who have been tasked with searching for your child access to part of the investigation files ( David Edgar's evidence in Lisbon ) 2) When your PIs have identified a likely suspect put all your money and energy into investigating a sighting they say has no credibility. 3) When arguably one of the finest police forces in the world have identified a person of interest don't make the efits of that person less important than a sighting that has already been ruled out. 4) Bury the efits of the identified person of interest behind an anonymous button on your Facebook page. 5) Leave the website connected to your campaign unmanned for months or years at a time. 6) Don't use money donated to fund the search on anything but the actual search. 7) Don't be less than open and cooperative with the police force investigating your child's disappearance.
I'm sure there's more but I think that's enough to be going on with.
Could you actually answer my questions, not you own question? Many thanks.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 18, 2015, 06:32:24 PM
1 Provided you discount hiring PI's early doors which could be counterproductive to the police investigation and not being particularly cooperative with the local police. 2 It would be the most pragmatic thing to do in my book.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 18, 2015, 06:36:14 PM
1 Provided you discount hiring PI's early doors which could be counterproductive to the police investigation and not being particularly cooperative with the local police. 2 It would be the most pragmatic thing to do in my book.
1) in what way were the McCanns not particularly cooperative with the local police? 2) I don't see what advantages there could possibly be in declaring a missing child dead, unless as a way of pyschologically dawing a line under it, and getting on with the rest of your life. Is this what you think the Mccanns should have already done?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 18, 2015, 06:55:31 PM
Isn't that where Salty Jacks is built? Just up behind the Millennium restaurant (more recently The Mirage)
That area just N of the Millennium and S of Quinta da Bela Vista does appear to be Urbanização Ramalhete, and it has got the correct post code.
That is one area of Luz that I have never trekked over, as there is nothing commercial on it.
Lote 7 is a large villa, but it is advertised on-line as consisting of one-bedroom apartments for 35€ a night, so it looks like it competes with Salty Jacks and the Mirage apartments.
The Millennium and the Mirage are different establishments, both of which existed in Madeleine's day and both of which feature prominently in the file.
The Mirage + Mirage apartments are up for sale now, so if anyone wants to waste an eye watering sum of money (the owner wants silly money for something that is losing cash now), please let me know.
As to Casa H.... hmmm.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 18, 2015, 06:59:32 PM
Actual physical searching on site. 1. Everywhere I could conceive of the child being in and around of the apartment and it's immediate locality. Call the cops and notify reception. Continue searching areas with which she would be familiar until the cops arrive. Give the cops all the info they asked for then butt out of the search and let the cops get on with it. 2,3,4,5,6 & 7 nothing unless the cops or media came up with a credible sighting. 8. I wouldn't reach 8. After 7 years sadly I would apply for death in absentia.
You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is? I see.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 18, 2015, 07:06:24 PM
1) in what way were the McCanns not particularly cooperative with the local police? 2) I don't see what advantages there could possibly be in declaring a missing child dead, unless as a way of pyschologically dawing a line under it, and getting on with the rest of your life. Is this what you think the Mccanns should have already done?
1. RTFF. 2 I said what I would do and why. What you the McCanns and the forum's Magrat, Esme & Gytha do and think ain't exactly relevant to what I would do or think.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 18, 2015, 07:18:54 PM
So tell me and the forum so we can be appraised of your startling perspicacity. I think it unseemly for mods to try to goad posters into pissing contests.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 18, 2015, 07:24:44 PM
1. RTFF. 2 I said what I would do and why. What you the McCanns and the forum's Magrat, Esme & Gytha do and think ain't exactly relevant to what I would do or think.
1. what does that stand for? * 2)You didn't really say why you would do it, only that it was the pragmatic thing to do. How does a child being legally declared dead help you in any way, unless it is to help you draw a line under it and move on? Is that what you mean?
* read the f.....g files, right? I have but I'm asking you in what way the McCanns were less than cooperative, particularly in the first few months of their child's disappearance?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 18, 2015, 07:29:50 PM
So tell me and the forum so we can be appraised of your startling perspicacity. I think it unseemly for mods to try to goad posters into pissing contests.
But this statement by Eleanor is correct isn't it?
You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is?
What's not to see?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 18, 2015, 07:35:05 PM
1. what does that stand for? * 2)You didn't really say why you would do it, only that it was the pragmatic thing to do. How does a child being legally declared dead help you in any way, unless it is to help you draw a line under it and move on? Is that what you mean?
* read the f.....g files, right? I have but I'm asking you in what way the McCanns were less than cooperative, particularly in the first few months of their child's disappearance?
I know you asked me. You asked two questions initially and I answered them. Now you want to play 20 questions with my answers to those questions. That's not my bag so make do with what you have. You can make up the rest if you like. Others appear to be.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 18, 2015, 07:42:46 PM
But this statement by Eleanor is correct isn't it?
You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is?
What's not to see?
I would have my own missing child declared dead under the rules of death in absentia which is not quite the same as that which you and the senior mod appear to be saying. Do you find something less than desirable about this? I find it the pragmatic thing to do. I don't expect you to agree but that's your prerogative.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 18, 2015, 07:52:44 PM
I would have my own missing child declared dead under the rules of death in absentia which is not quite the same as that which you and the senior mod appear to be saying. Do you find something less than desirable about this? I find it the pragmatic thing to do. I don't expect you to agree but that's your prerogative.
As you don't seem to like engaging in discussion or being asked to clarify the statements you make on this forum, there seems little point interacting with you any further.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 18, 2015, 08:55:09 PM
That area just N of the Millennium and S of Quinta da Bela Vista does appear to be Urbanização Ramalhete, and it has got the correct post code.
That is one area of Luz that I have never trekked over, as there is nothing commercial on it.
Lote 7 is a large villa, but it is advertised on-line as consisting of one-bedroom apartments for 35€ a night, so it looks like it competes with Salty Jacks and the Mirage apartments.
The Millennium and the Mirage are different establishments, both of which existed in Madeleine's day and both of which feature prominently in the file.
The Mirage + Mirage apartments are up for sale now, so if anyone wants to waste an eye watering sum of money (the owner wants silly money for something that is losing cash now), please let me know.
As to Casa H.... hmmm.
Thanks for that, Shining. This was the reason for my interest in the precise location of the property is the witness a)returned home in a vehicle at 9.30pm & b)heard the commotion outside his house at 11pm. Would his return journey from Alvor have taken him north of 5a? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE-NOVO.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on October 18, 2015, 10:05:47 PM
The Millennium and the Mirage are different establishments, both of which existed in Madeleine's day and both of which feature prominently in the file.
Thank you for clarifying that ShiningInLuz, apparently the restaurants are next door to each other thus the confusion.
This map show the layout rather well with No 3 being the Millennium Restaurant with the Mirage Restaurant being just below it on the corner.
As you don't seem to like engaging in discussion or being asked to clarify the statements you make on this forum, there seems little point interacting with you any further.
What's to clarify? It seems plain enough to me. Tell me where it isn't? Death in absentia A person may be legally declared dead (declared death in absentia or legal presumption of death) despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death, such as the finding of remains (e.g., a corpse or skeleton) attributable to that person. Such a declaration is typically made when a person has been missing for an extended period of time and in the absence of any evidence that the person is still alive That's clear enough I think. According to the files the McCanns were not as cooperative with the police as they might have been check it out. Indeed the faithful on here hold that up as somekind of virtue. If you don't wish to interact anymore that's fine by me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 18, 2015, 10:33:39 PM
What's to clarify? It seems plain enough to me. Tell me where it isn't? Death in absentia A person may be legally declared dead (declared death in absentia or legal presumption of death) despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death, such as the finding of remains (e.g., a corpse or skeleton) attributable to that person. Such a declaration is typically made when a person has been missing for an extended period of time and in the absence of any evidence that the person is still alive That's clear enough I think. According to the files the McCanns were not as cooperative with the police as they might have been check it out. Indeed the faithful on here hold that up as somekind of virtue. If you don't wish to interact anymore that's fine by me.
I know what death in absentia means, I didn't ask for clarification on its meaning. I wrote: "You didn't really say why you would do it (apply for death in absentia), only that it was the pragmatic thing to do. How does a child being legally declared dead help you in any way, unless it is to help you draw a line under it and move on? Is that what you mean?" - this (obviously) was the point I was asking for clarity on, but you don't wish to give it - your prerogative.
As far as I am concerned, having read the files, the McCanns were as cooperative as it was possible for them to be during the 120+ days they were in Portugal, right up to the time when it became apparent that the police were trying to build a case against them, and the one occasion when Kate refused to answer the questions put to her afer being made arguido. So - pretty much for the entire duration of their stay in Portugal they were co-operating. They even allowed a pair of dogs to trample and slobber all over their possessions, I mean how much more co-operative could they have been? But, in their position you would have been waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more co-operative of course!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 18, 2015, 10:42:39 PM
1 Provided you discount hiring PI's early doors which could be counterproductive to the police investigation and not being particularly cooperative with the local police. 2 It would be the most pragmatic thing to do in my book.
as has been pointed out it aint your book and IMO in the circumstances seems a ridiculous idea
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 18, 2015, 11:02:27 PM
I know what death in absentia means, I didn't ask for clarification on its meaning. I wrote: "You didn't really say why you would do it (apply for death in absentia), only that it was the pragmatic thing to do. How does a child being legally declared dead help you in any way, unless it is to help you draw a line under it and move on? Is that what you mean?" - this (obviously) was the point I was asking for clarity on, but you don't wish to give it - your prerogative.
As far as I am concerned, having read the files, the McCanns were as cooperative as it was possible for them to be during the 120+ days they were in Portugal, right up to the time when it became apparent that the police were trying to build a case against them, and the one occasion when Kate refused to answer the questions put to her afer being made arguido. So - pretty much for the entire duration of their stay in Portugal they were co-operating. They even allowed a pair of dogs to trample and slobber all over their possessions, I mean how much more co-operative could they have been? But, in their position you would have been waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more co-operative of course!
They had no choice but to allow Eddie into their rental villa and to allow clothes to be taken for inspection - there was a search warrant - issued by Judge Pedro Frias earlier that same day 2nd August 2007 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2085.jpg http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2086.jpg
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 19, 2015, 01:02:20 AM
Thanks for that, Shining. This was the reason for my interest in the precise location of the property is the witness a)returned home in a vehicle at 9.30pm & b)heard the commotion outside his house at 11pm. Would his return journey from Alvor have taken him north of 5a? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE-NOVO.htm
Alvor is well to the east of Luz. It seems there is a BUPA hospital there. Whatever.
So from east of Luz, to Lagos, then entering the town. That would have been by the old road from the east, hit the entrance to Luz, and turn north.
That makes his journey east and north-east of 5A. It's about 500m at closest. If they were checking out there at 11pm, they were giving it a jolly good go.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 19, 2015, 11:39:26 AM
I know what death in absentia means, I didn't ask for clarification on its meaning. I wrote: "You didn't really say why you would do it (apply for death in absentia), only that it was the pragmatic thing to do. How does a child being legally declared dead help you in any way, unless it is to help you draw a line under it and move on? Is that what you mean?" - this (obviously) was the point I was asking for clarity on, but you don't wish to give it - your prerogative.
As far as I am concerned, having read the files, the McCanns were as cooperative as it was possible for them to be during the 120+ days they were in Portugal, right up to the time when it became apparent that the police were trying to build a case against them, and the one occasion when Kate refused to answer the questions put to her afer being made arguido. So - pretty much for the entire duration of their stay in Portugal they were co-operating. They even allowed a pair of dogs to trample and slobber all over their possessions, I mean how much more co-operative could they have been? But, in their position you would have been waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more co-operative of course!
You clearly didn't, neither did Eleanor. You both posted: "You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is?"
Death in absentia works on there being no evidence the person is alive.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 19, 2015, 02:05:02 PM
You clearly didn't, neither did Eleanor. You both posted: "You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is?"
Death in absentia works on there being no evidence the person is alive.
From your own quote: "Death in absentia A person may be legally declared dead (declared death in absentia or legal presumption of death) despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death..." How does this differ from what Eleanor wrote: "You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is?"
Nice swerve of the points in my post to nit-pick over nothing at all. You are wasting my time. Goodbye.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on October 19, 2015, 03:33:33 PM
Alvor is well to the east of Luz. It seems there is a BUPA hospital there. Whatever.
So from east of Luz, to Lagos, then entering the town. That would have been by the old road from the east, hit the entrance to Luz, and turn north.
That makes his journey east and north-east of 5A. It's about 500m at closest. If they were checking out there at 11pm, they were giving it a jolly good go.
Is that a long way? I've seen the main reception quoted as being 500m from G5A?
However, Joao Carlos Silva Batista said he and his wife received a telephone call at 10.30pm and arrived at the Ocean Club at 11pm. We know his wife (Silvia) arrived just before the GNR, so that seems about right. He doesn't mention being up near the Millenium area in his statement, but he must have dropped Silvia off and either driven or walked straight up to that area if he was seen there at 11pm.
That he immediately left for the OC where he arrived at about 23.00 and immediately began to search the resort and the beach area, searching in all the places where the child might be. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BATISTA.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 19, 2015, 04:47:15 PM
1. RTFF. 2 I said what I would do and why. What you the McCanns and the forum's Magrat, Esme & Gytha do and think ain't exactly relevant to what I would do or think.
How about Greebo....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 19, 2015, 04:51:54 PM
Is that a long way? I've seen the main reception quoted as being 500m from G5A?
However, Joao Carlos Silva Batista said he and his wife received a telephone call at 10.30pm and arrived at the Ocean Club at 11pm. We know his wife (Silvia) arrived just before the GNR, so that seems about right. He doesn't mention being up near the Millenium area in his statement, but he must have dropped Silvia off and either driven or walked straight up to that area if he was seen there at 11pm.
That he immediately left for the OC where he arrived at about 23.00 and immediately began to search the resort and the beach area, searching in all the places where the child might be. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BATISTA.htm
Nothing in Luz is far away, because Luz is not large.
5A to OC 24 = 260m, by Gerry's short route. Heading straight down Martins turn left onto Teixera, left onto Direita will be a fair bit longer.
OC24 to Millenium = 460m.
5A to Millennium = 580m.
Millennium to vaguely within Urbanizção Ramalhete is somewhere around 250m.
A normal walking speed of 4mph converts very closely to 100m/minute.
Journeys by car get more complicated. The bits of Luz that were being dug up at the time were enough to give Luz's 1-way system a heart attack, therefore diversions were required. I know from a contemporaneous site that diversions were indeed in place. What I don't know is what those diversions were.
I have seen somewhere on this forum a photo of Rua Direita with traffic heading the 'wrong' way i.e. E to W. What I don't know is whether Direita was 2-way for a while, or simply reversed.
Whatever the situation, the OC and the Millennium must have been a very few minutes away at most by car.
(All distances from Google Earth, following pedestrian/car routes i.e. NOT as the crow flies.)
The nearest the route back from Alvor to Urb Ramalhete was to 5A should have been the corner where the Mirage is situated, hence a bit closer than the Millennium.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 19, 2015, 04:57:18 PM
From your own quote: "Death in absentia A person may be legally declared dead (declared death in absentia or legal presumption of death) despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death..." How does this differ from what Eleanor wrote: "You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is?"
Nice swerve of the points in my post to nit-pick over nothing at all. You are wasting my time. Goodbye.
You could always take your own advice and answer questions posed to you by other posters including me instead of ignoring them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 19, 2015, 04:59:31 PM
You clearly didn't, neither did Eleanor. You both posted: "You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is?"
Death in absentia works on there being no evidence the person is alive.
Used as a legal tool where the estates of missing people can be distributed if there is (regarded as) compelling evidence that someone might be dead, and where keeping the estate locked might cause hardship.
None of that applicable to Madeleine ...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 19, 2015, 05:14:44 PM
Used as a legal tool where the estates of missing people can be distributed if there is (regarded as) compelling evidence that someone might be dead, and where keeping the estate locked might cause hardship.
None of that applicable to Madeleine ...
I never said it was. Round and round the bleedin' mulberry bush
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 19, 2015, 06:03:00 PM
You could always take your own advice and answer questions posed to you by other posters including me instead of ignoring them.
Let's try again shall we?
From your own quote: "Death in absentia A person may be legally declared dead (declared death in absentia or legal presumption of death) despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death..." How does this differ from what Eleanor wrote: "You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is?"
Yours in fevered anticipation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 20, 2015, 07:16:41 PM
There are witness reports of the father searching that night.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 21, 2015, 01:19:55 PM
From your own quote: "Death in absentia A person may be legally declared dead (declared death in absentia or legal presumption of death) despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death..." How does this differ from what Eleanor wrote: "You would have your own missing child declared dead in the absence of any evidence that she actually is?"
Yours in fevered anticipation.
I trust the fever is better. To continue the quote you snipped: "Such a declaration is typically made when a person has been missing for an extended period of time and in the absence of any evidence that the person is still alive -" PONG your PING
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 21, 2015, 04:02:53 PM
I trust the fever is better. To continue the quote you snipped: "Such a declaration is typically made when a person has been missing for an extended period of time and in the absence of any evidence that the person is still alive -" PONG your PING
So what exactly? How does your nitpicking over a legal technicality mean that either Eleanor or myself (not in a court of law, but on a chat forum) are wrong to ask you if you (that's you personally and not an applicant in an actual court of law) would seek to have your own child declared dead despite the absence of any evidence that she actually is?
And if you really want to get nit-picky and have your pong pinged back atcha, there's no such thing as 'applying for death in absentia'.
And you still haven't explained how having your child legally declared dead is a preferable thing to not having her declared dead. I assume it would be to enable you to achieve closure of some sort, am I wrong?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 21, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
So what exactly? How does your nitpicking over a legal technicality mean that either Eleanor or myself (not in a court of law, but on a chat forum) are wrong to ask you if you (that's you personally and not an applicant in an actual court of law) would seek to have your own child declared dead despite the absence of any evidence that she actually is?
And if you really want to get nit-picky and have your pong pinged back atcha, there's no such thing as 'applying for death in absentia'.
And you still haven't explained how having your child legally declared dead is a preferable thing to not having her declared dead. I assume it would be to enable you to achieve closure of some sort, am I wrong?
Just putting it in the correct context. In didn't say it was preferable. I said that is what I would do. Now hows about you answer my question that you gave a body swerve to a while back? You being hot on that sort thing getting all huffy when others don't answer your questions. PONG
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 21, 2015, 05:22:36 PM
Just putting it in the correct context. In didn't say it was preferable. I said that is what I would do. Now hows about you answer my question that you gave a body swerve to a while back? You being hot on that sort thing getting all huffy when others don't answer your questions. PONG
What questions of yours have I avoided? Do tell.
In the meantime you have yet again avoided mine. You would apply for "death in absentia" (sic) for your missing child as soon as it is possible to do so because it is the "pragmatic" thing to do. Why is it the pragmatic thing to do?
ETA: I have gone back through every post of yours back as far as page 14 and can find no questions of yours addressed to me that remain unanswered - so unless these were questions that you posed before then, I think you must be mistaken.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on October 21, 2015, 06:34:57 PM
There are witness reports of the father searching that night.
There are Pegasus, they searched as much as they could it being a foreign country, then they waited for the police to arrive, which is what anyone would do.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 21, 2015, 07:25:15 PM
In the meantime you have yet again avoided mine. You would apply for "death in absentia" (sic) for your missing child as soon as it is possible to do so because it is the "pragmatic" thing to do. Why is it the pragmatic thing to do?
ETA: I have gone back through every post of yours back as far as page 14 and can find no questions of yours addressed to me that remain unanswered - so unless these were questions that you posed before then, I think you must be mistaken.
I am sure you can find it if you try hard enough.
Because I choose not to in the knowledge that if your previous MO is anything to go by you will persist in asking questions that become further and further from the original topic. Then when a question is not answered you will shriek foul. Try a change of tax discs and surprise us all 8(>((
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Admin on October 22, 2015, 02:17:05 AM
A reminder to all members.
Bad language will not be tolerated on this forum. Any member found to be persistently breaching this rule will have their membership suspended. Please continue to report non compliances as and when they occur.
Admin
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 23, 2015, 04:44:01 PM
Reportedly according to a fisherman, searching near shore was still going on at 1am ...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 24, 2015, 07:56:43 PM
... ask Cândido
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 24, 2015, 11:58:47 PM
As Gerry McCann was due to testify today (June 16) in the long-running civil action for defamation that he and wife Kate have taken out against former detective Gonçalo Amaral, damning new claims about his behaviour on the night three-year-old Madeleine disappeared have appeared in the Portuguese press. On Sunday, the headline of a story carried by Correio da Manhã proclaimed “Gerry searched for Maddie drunk”, while in the evening the policeman whose inconvenient theory the couple is demanding over a million euros in damages for went on television to describe how a key witness had placed Gerry McCann on Luz beach on the night Madeleine went missing - but how that witness’ testimony has since been “wiped from police records”. The first story hinged on an account from farmer and former fisherman Cândido Furtado who lives a short walk from Luz church overlooking the beach. Furtado told journalists how he had seen Gerry McCann “totally drunk” calling Madeleine’s name in the street in the early hours of the morning after she reportedly vanished. “The father was walking at 1am with a bottle of wine in his hand,” Furtado told CM. “He was calling the child’s name outside my door, and I asked him ‘what kind of noise is this?’ He said: ‘Menina, menina, embora, embora’.” Father and grandfather Furtado said he told Gerry McCann to call the police, and then went fishing. But as CM adds, “he had no doubts that Gerry McCann was drunk”. “You could see it instantly, by the way he was walking,” he told the paper. Intriguingly, hours later, former police inspector Gonçalo Amaral went on air on CMTV to say Gerry McCann had also been seen on the beach on the night Madeleine went missing - but that the witness who placed him there (a British tourist) had her testimony wiped from police records. 7- See more at: http://portugalresident.com/new-revelations-as-mccanns-go-all-out-for-%E2%82%AC1-million-in-damages#sthash.QcHcua0P.dpuf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://news.sky.com/story/1279830/madeleine-mccann-police-bring-in-sniffer-dogs The land just outside the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, was taped off by Portuguese police early this morning ahead of the British team's arrival.
Within an hour, British police were back out on the ground and searching the new area, which lies on the road between Praia da Luz and the town of Lagos and sits behind a water treatment plant.
Police sniffer dogs from South Wales Police were out on the land this morning and then search teams formed a line and systematically searched the ground with sticks.
Local handyman Candido Furtado told Sky News: "I can't understand why they are searching here, On this land they will only find bones from buried horses and donkeys.
"I have always worked here and I never seen anything suspicious or any disturbed ground." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An honest & reliable witness?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 25, 2015, 12:12:06 AM
As Gerry McCann was due to testify today (June 16) in the long-running civil action for defamation that he and wife Kate have taken out against former detective Gonçalo Amaral, damning new claims about his behaviour on the night three-year-old Madeleine disappeared have appeared in the Portuguese press. On Sunday, the headline of a story carried by Correio da Manhã proclaimed “Gerry searched for Maddie drunk”, while in the evening the policeman whose inconvenient theory the couple is demanding over a million euros in damages for went on television to describe how a key witness had placed Gerry McCann on Luz beach on the night Madeleine went missing - but how that witness’ testimony has since been “wiped from police records”. The first story hinged on an account from farmer and former fisherman Cândido Furtado who lives a short walk from Luz church overlooking the beach. Furtado told journalists how he had seen Gerry McCann “totally drunk” calling Madeleine’s name in the street in the early hours of the morning after she reportedly vanished. “The father was walking at 1am with a bottle of wine in his hand,” Furtado told CM. “He was calling the child’s name outside my door, and I asked him ‘what kind of noise is this?’ He said: ‘Menina, menina, embora, embora’.” Father and grandfather Furtado said he told Gerry McCann to call the police, and then went fishing. But as CM adds, “he had no doubts that Gerry McCann was drunk”. “You could see it instantly, by the way he was walking,” he told the paper. Intriguingly, hours later, former police inspector Gonçalo Amaral went on air on CMTV to say Gerry McCann had also been seen on the beach on the night Madeleine went missing - but that the witness who placed him there (a British tourist) had her testimony wiped from police records. 7- See more at: http://portugalresident.com/new-revelations-as-mccanns-go-all-out-for-%E2%82%AC1-million-in-damages#sthash.QcHcua0P.dpuf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://news.sky.com/story/1279830/madeleine-mccann-police-bring-in-sniffer-dogs The land just outside the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, was taped off by Portuguese police early this morning ahead of the British team's arrival.
Within an hour, British police were back out on the ground and searching the new area, which lies on the road between Praia da Luz and the town of Lagos and sits behind a water treatment plant.
Police sniffer dogs from South Wales Police were out on the land this morning and then search teams formed a line and systematically searched the ground with sticks.
Local handyman Candido Furtado told Sky News: "I can't understand why they are searching here, On this land they will only find bones from buried horses and donkeys.
"I have always worked here and I never seen anything suspicious or any disturbed ground." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An honest & reliable witness?
'Menina, menina, embora, embora’
If Gerry knows to this today what he supposedly knew then in Portuguese, I will be happy to buy you fish and chips on the Algarve.
Please note, we do not get cod around here.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 25, 2015, 01:18:58 AM
Thanks Shining, you buy me sardines and chips, I'll bring a bottle, NZ or house red?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 25, 2015, 04:06:49 AM
The original Correio Da Manha article http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8DEK4NiJdZIJ:www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/gerry-procurava-maddie-bebedo.html While Ms Donn of the Portugal News is probably the very best english language journalist in this case, her non-translation of the words "menina" and "embora" is arbitrary and they should have been translated back into the original English IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2015, 04:24:23 AM
The original Correio Da Manha article http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8DEK4NiJdZIJ:www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/gerry-procurava-maddie-bebedo.html While Ms Donn of the Portugal News is probably the very best english language journalist in this case, her non-translation of the words "menina" and "embora" is arbitrary and they should have been translated back into the original English IMO.
So exactly what is Gerry supposed to have said? And would Furtado have understood anyway, if it was said in English?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 25, 2015, 04:53:58 AM
This demonstrates how much untapped information there is amongst locals in PDL. You'd think that SY's crimewatch appeal would have already opened up all that information including Mr Furtado's. But the odd and inexplicable thing is, SY never produced a portuguese language version of the appeal. And when SIC and RTV asked permission to broadcast the english version in portugal, the bbc said no, how stupid is that?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 25, 2015, 04:59:38 AM
Although I don't think that this is important since no one in their right mind would believe it. But it might well have fuelled the accusations that they were all drunk. Along with a few other suspect suggestions.
So who do you think this man whom Cándido saw at about 1AM was?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2015, 05:16:19 AM
So who do you think this man whom Cándido saw at about 1AM was?
Sorry, who is Candido?
You don't actually believe that Gerry McCann was staggering around drunk and alone, clutching a bottle of wine, do you?
But to answer your question, probably an attention seeker since he appears to exist. But would Gerry have been speaking Portuguese, which he couldn't do. Or would Furtado have understood English, which is highly unlikely, especially if Gerry was drunk.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 25, 2015, 05:30:04 AM
He is caretaker of the property (over road from the water treatment plant) which was one of the later places the Met deployed cadaver dogs in 2014. It was only by that coincidence, that Correio Da Manha spoke to him and heard and published his account. He had obviously missed the portuguese broadcast of crimewatch (which is no surprise - there was none).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2015, 05:40:50 AM
He is caretaker of the property (over road from the water treatment plant) which was one of the later places the Met deployed cadaver dogs in 2014. It was only by that coincidence, that Correio Da Manha spoke to him and heard and published his account. He had obviously missed the portuguese broadcast of crimewatch (which is no surprise - there was none).
So was it Candido, or was it Furtardo, or was it both? And when did CdM speak to which one of them? Sorry, I sometimes have trouble keeping up with all of this.
But I am mightily impressed with some of the stuff you come up with.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 25, 2015, 05:44:22 AM
So was it Candido, or was it Furtardo, or was it both? And when did CdM speak to which one of them? Sorry, I sometimes have trouble keeping up with all of this.
But I am mightily impressed with some of the stuff you come up with.
One man, those are first and last names, CdM spoke with him June 2014 as an indirect result of SY activity. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8DEK4NiJdZIJ:www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/gerry-procurava-maddie-bebedo.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on October 25, 2015, 06:09:50 AM
One man, those are first and last names, CdM spoke with him June 2014 as an indirect result of SY activity. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8DEK4NiJdZIJ:www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/gerry-procurava-maddie-bebedo.html
Ah, Candido Furtardo. What a very unfortunate name. So, he never said anything to The PJ at the time?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 25, 2015, 06:20:19 AM
Sorry. My penchant for a play on words. But wouldn't it have been a bit late to interview him at that stage?
Certainly not too late. In June 2014 the PJ investigation had already been reopened and was very active including cadaver dog searches using welsh dogs at 4 sites in PDL. IMO the PJ probably interviewed witness CF very soon after the CdM article, if not before. What he says confirms that the group truly were searching into the early hours.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 25, 2015, 08:46:47 PM
As a great sage once said "There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material ..." and a torch and a bottle are similar shapes so maybe the witness actually saw a torch which was turned off to conserve batteries but in the dark and poor foreign street lighting mistook it for a bottle?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 26, 2015, 03:50:45 PM
As a great sage once said "There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material ..." and a torch and a bottle are similar shapes so maybe the witness actually saw a torch which was turned off to conserve batteries but in the dark and poor foreign street lighting mistook it for a bottle?
He recognised a drunken Gerry McCann but couldn't distinguish a torch from a wine bottle? That's more O'Reilly than Basil.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 26, 2015, 06:36:32 PM
Ok how about this Misty. Having identified the possibility of international abduction, and realising that some remote islands have no internet or TV or mobile phones, it was urgent to alert inhabitants of those remote islands by going to the shore and sending a ... Sounds unlikely but I did hear the idea from my second "police" source. What's your explanation Misty - possibly it was completely wrong identification?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 26, 2015, 07:06:28 PM
Ok how about this Misty. Having identified the possibility of international abduction, and realising that some remote islands have no internet or TV or mobile phones, it was urgent to alert inhabitants of those remote islands by going to the shore and sending a ... Sounds unlikely but I did hear the idea from my second "police" source. What's your explanation Misty - possibly it was completely wrong identification?
I think it was a desperately random attempt to justify an allegation of an "important" missing statement from the police files which, like much else, had never previously been important until a thesis was being decimated. Mr. Farmer/Fisherman/Handyman had never given a statement to the PJ, afaik, despite living in the thick of the drama. I'm presuming he knew Euclides? I'm not into a flashlight or flare theory to signal a boat.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 26, 2015, 07:25:32 PM
I think it was a desperately random attempt to justify an allegation of an "important" missing statement from the police files which, like much else, had never previously been important until a thesis was being decimated. Mr. Farmer/Fisherman/Handyman had never given a statement to the PJ, afaik, despite living in the thick of the drama. I'm presuming he knew Euclides? I'm not into a flashlight or flare theory to signal a boat.
A reasonable reason for carrying a a bottle to the shore would be to use it to send a message in a bottle. As I said I heard this from a police source. And if someone dropped the piece of paper with the message on they would walk zigzag looking for it in the dark. So really there is nothing out of the ordinary about this at all.
As for the theory you mention, that witness CF was invented and his account too, why would anyone invent a male local fisherman to back up Mr Amaral's claim about a female brit tourist? That would be a cunning plan.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 26, 2015, 07:48:43 PM
A reasonable reason for carrying a a bottle to the shore would be to use it to send a message in a bottle. As I said I heard this from a police source. And if someone dropped the piece of paper with the message on they would walk zigzag looking for it in the dark. So really there is nothing out of the ordinary about this at all.
As for the theory you mention, that witness CF was invented and his account too, why would anyone invent a male local fisherman to back up Mr Amaral's claim about a female brit tourist? That would be a cunning plan.
Truly lol'd at the message in a bottle idea. GM should have switched the "bottle" on to see where the paper went.
I think you have to have a suspension of disbelief in relation to anything that comes from a Portuguese source several weeks/months/years down the line. GM probably was on the beach that night at some stage - but was he seen on the beach with a body or a big black bin bag & a plastic spade?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 26, 2015, 08:11:29 PM
Truly lol'd at the message in a bottle idea. GM should have switched the "bottle" on to see where the paper went.
I think you have to have a suspension of disbelief in relation to anything that comes from a Portuguese source several weeks/months/years down the line. GM probably was on the beach that night at some stage - but was he seen on the beach with a body or a big black bin bag & a plastic spade?
Witness CF saw a man apparently searching with a bottle near the shore at about 1AM. BTW CF has definitely at least spoken with GNR.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 26, 2015, 08:18:04 PM
A reasonable reason for carrying a a bottle to the shore would be to use it to send a message in a bottle. As I said I heard this from a police source. And if someone dropped the piece of paper with the message on they would walk zigzag looking for it in the dark. So really there is nothing out of the ordinary about this at all.
As for the theory you mention, that witness CF was invented and his account too, why would anyone invent a male local fisherman to back up Mr Amaral's claim about a female brit tourist? That would be a cunning plan.
A cunning plan indeed.
Has anyone seen anything of the statement from the woman who allegedly had concerns about the open boot of the Renault in the villa driveway?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 26, 2015, 08:21:54 PM
Witness CF saw a man apparently searching with a bottle near the shore at about 1AM. BTW CF has definitely at least spoken with GNR.
There were lots of locals searching near the shore that night. Did this lone man stand out because he was drunk, shouting something in Portuguese or English, take your pick? Do you have a link to CF speaking with the GNR?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 27, 2015, 12:36:02 AM
I think you have to have a suspension of disbelief in relation to anything that comes from a Portuguese source several weeks/months/years down the line
But youre happy to accept witnesses coming forward weeks/months/ years down the line vis a vis having "on Maddie " or perpetrators, Pretty irresponsible of them
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on October 27, 2015, 12:55:54 AM
But youre happy to accept witnesses coming forward weeks/months/ years down the line vis a vis having "on Maddie " or perpetrators, Pretty irresponsible of them
Is your predictive text acting up again?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 27, 2015, 01:20:17 AM
Please talk me through it then. There's nothing in the press reports I've seen to confirm anything either way.
Ok. One report says he went to a site he caretakes on the Lagos road but was not allowed in because SY were searching it. We know from photos that it is GNR soldiers who guarded the perimeters of all the visible SY search sites. Therefore he spoke with GNR. IMO he will have since then been interviewed by the current PJ investigation (some of them do read CdM), about his 1AM sighting of someone apparently with a bottle.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 27, 2015, 02:45:52 AM
Ok. One report says he went to a site he caretakes on the Lagos road but was not allowed in because SY were searching it. We know from photos that it is GNR soldiers who guarded the perimeters of all the visible SY search sites. Therefore he spoke with GNR. IMO he will have since then been interviewed by the current PJ investigation (some of them do read CdM), about his 1AM sighting of someone apparently with a bottle.
SY digs were in 2014, not 2007. I agree he may have spoken to the PJ after speaking to the press - but wouldn't he also have been interviewed as part of the EM investigation? Why didn't he speak out in 2007 about the man with the bottle?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on October 27, 2015, 03:09:22 AM
SY digs were in 2014, not 2007. I agree he may have spoken to the PJ after speaking to the press - but wouldn't he also have been interviewed as part of the EM investigation? Why didn't he speak out in 2007 about the man with the bottle?
The whole purpose of Mr Redwood's Crimewatch appeal was to get people to come forward who had not come forward in 2007. A new witness coming forward now might solve the case Misty.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on October 27, 2015, 03:26:23 AM
The whole purpose of Mr Redwood's Crimewatch appeal was to get people to come forward who had not come forward in 2007. A new witness coming forward now might solve the case Misty.
IMO the case has been solved but hard evidence may be an issue.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on October 27, 2015, 04:06:13 AM
IMO the case has been solved but hard evidence may be an issue.
Good luck
@)(++(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 03, 2015, 10:38:28 PM
In the PJ photos taken that night the sofa is all the way back against the wall. I find this exremely odd. If someone had pulled it away from the wall to search behind it and found nothing, that person would leave it pulled away from the wall with a gap behind. The person would not think "oh this is a desperate emergency but tidiness and feng shui must take priority so I will waste valuable time pushing it back against the wall". But It looks to me like someone has pushed it back. Why waste time doing that?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 03, 2015, 10:59:13 PM
In the PJ photos taken that night the sofa is all the way back against the wall. I find this exremely odd. If someone had pulled it away from the wall to search behind it and found nothing, that person would leave it pulled away from the wall with a gap behind. The person would not think "oh this is a desperate emergency but tidiness and feng shui must take priority so I will waste valuable time pushing it back against the wall". But It looks to me like someone has pushed it back. Why waste time doing that?
Did the police or anyone else say they moved it and searched behind it? Only asking because if not, GM had said he had pushed it against the wall before that day because the kids were throwing stuff behind it or something.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 03, 2015, 11:50:52 PM
(snip) ..., GM had said he had pushed it against the wall before that day because the kids were throwing stuff behind it or something.
"Regarding this sofa, he remembers it was against the window. He is not sure, but thinks that this sofa was probably a bit further away from the window, and he vaguely remembers pushing it back a bit, because his children threw objects behind it, namely playing cards". GM 7 Sept 2007
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 04, 2015, 12:50:17 AM
Youve lost me, why bring it up then? Who pulled it away from the wall?
The two key words in that quote are "a bit" therefore Sofa position at time of apparent disappearance = small gap between it and wall probably just enough for curtains to open and close.. Sofa position when PJ arrive = completely against wall, zero gap, trapping curtains. Therefore someone moved the sofa during the panicked search of the apartment. But who?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 04, 2015, 01:37:55 AM
If anything was behind that sofa the police would have found it. They are not going to let anyone get inside the crime scene even though Gerry was allowed to collect more clothes as crime scene shots prove e.g. the beige item on the bed was gone the next day.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 04, 2015, 01:40:55 AM
You think she was hidden behind the sofa and the killer later returns with police everywhere to move her out. Take a break 8(0(*
No that is not my theory nor is it Mr Amaral's. I am just looking at a sofa Pathfinder. I can understand someone pulling it out in a panic to search behind it - that is not suspicious. But what is suspicious is pushing it back again
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 04, 2015, 01:43:33 AM
I am just looking at a sofa Pathfinder. I can understand someone pulling it out in a panic to search behind it - that is not suspicious. But what is suspicious is pushing it back again.
A sofa being pushed against the wall connects to the dog alerts. They alerted behind it but the police found it against the wall and they leave the crime scene as it is. They don't start messing with it until forensics arrive.
p.s. the sofa wouldn't be up against the wall if the child was there.
A sofa being pushed against the wall connects to the dog alerts. They alerted behind it but the police found it against the wall and they leave the crime scene as it is. They don't start messing with it until forensics arrive.
Precisely Pathfinder, that night PJ found the sofa completely against the wall, PJ did not move it, forensics did not move it, IMO someone must have pulled it out to search behind it before PJ arrived. So why was it no longer in that pulled-out position when PJ arrived? Tidiness?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 04, 2015, 02:00:51 AM
(snip) ...p.s. the sofa wouldn't be up against the wall if the child was there.
Yes it is a straightback sofa therefore certainly IMO no-one was behind it when PJ arrived. But before PJ arrived why did someone push it back all the way to the wall?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 04, 2015, 02:17:34 AM
There was another very different case in the news today of incomplete search, and of a volume far smaller than an apartment, luckily child was ok. What I see in the apartment PJ photos are many places not fully searched.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 04, 2015, 09:56:54 AM
The two key words in that quote are "a bit" therefore Sofa position at time of apparent disappearance = small gap between it and wall probably just enough for curtains to open and close.. Sofa position when PJ arrive = completely against wall, zero gap, trapping curtains. Therefore someone moved the sofa during the panicked search of the apartment. But who?
How do you know the position of the sofa at the time Madeleine disappeared?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 05, 2015, 02:03:01 AM
How do you know the position of the sofa at the time Madeleine disappeared?
Because after the playing cards went behind it it was moved back "a bit" (see statement 7 Sept 2007) Not "all the way against the wall". The statement says it was moved back "a bit". Therefore during the dinner that evening, the sofa was still a little away from the wall. Probably about 6 inches IMO - just enough gap to allow the curtains to be opened and closed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 05, 2015, 02:05:48 AM
Another thing - in a panicked search - yes open a cupboard door - that makes sense - but why shut it again?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 05, 2015, 12:10:15 PM
Shutting a door is a waste of time which does nothing to help the urgent search Brietta "... fling a cupboard open and just have a look and just shut the door and in a vain desperate hope that she might have been in the wardrobe ..."
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 06, 2015, 01:21:45 AM
Tell that to Gerry.
I remember going into Kate and Gerry's err bedroom with Gerry and he'd perhaps you know fling a cupboard open and just have a look and, ah you know and just shut the door and you know in a vein, desperate hope that she might have been err you know in, in the wardrobe or something, and then he, you know flung him, flung himself on the floor and just you know kicking the floor and just with, you know, she's gone, she's gone, err and then as I say, I, I, after that I can't really say exactly, you know. We kept meeting up at stages in the evening to, to try and appraise the situation and you know what shall we do, err.' (DP)
Eddie's first alert was in that bedroom.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 06, 2015, 02:05:20 AM
One of the 2 GNR officers first at the scene
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html
Pages 3281 - 3284
Witness Statement
José María Batista Roque
Date: 17 – 10 - 2007 "snipped" Then, while his colleague remained in the hall, and the others were in the living room, the witness went through the entire apartment. He opened all the cupboards in the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and checked under the beds and inside the washing machine. He did not see the fridge.
During the search he did not find anything strange apart from the bedclothes on Madeleine's bed, which were too tidy, it appeared that she had been picked up from or had left the bed with great care. There was a mark on the sheet that appeared to be made by a child's body.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 06, 2015, 08:09:23 AM
Because after the playing cards went behind it it was moved back "a bit" (see statement 7 Sept 2007) Not "all the way against the wall". The statement says it was moved back "a bit". Therefore during the dinner that evening, the sofa was still a little away from the wall. Probably about 6 inches IMO - just enough gap to allow the curtains to be opened and closed.
playing cards?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 06, 2015, 08:35:48 AM
Shutting a door is a waste of time which does nothing to help the urgent search Brietta "... fling a cupboard open and just have a look and just shut the door and in a vain desperate hope that she might have been in the wardrobe ..."
In a confined space it is sensible to close a cupboard door which opens outwards and which has been opened to allow the interior to be searched.
Imo it would only be appropriate to leave a door open if preserving a crime scene.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 06, 2015, 09:42:27 AM
"snipped" Then, while his colleague remained in the hall, and the others were in the living room, the witness went through the entire apartment. He opened all the cupboards in the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and checked under the beds and inside the washing machine. He did not see the fridge.
During the search he did not find anything strange apart from the bedclothes on Madeleine's bed, which were too tidy, it appeared that she had been picked up from or had left the bed with great care. There was a mark on the sheet that appeared to be made by a child's body.
Is that date correct?
From memory so I could be wrong, but didn't two GNR officers give statements that were virtually word for word the same?
How could that happen?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 06, 2015, 12:09:54 PM
Because after the playing cards went behind it it was moved back "a bit" (see statement 7 Sept 2007) Not "all the way against the wall". The statement says it was moved back "a bit". Therefore during the dinner that evening, the sofa was still a little away from the wall. Probably about 6 inches IMO - just enough gap to allow the curtains to be opened and closed.
In my opinion not even room for a child to fall behind the sofa.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 06, 2015, 12:20:00 PM
I remember going into Kate and Gerry's err bedroom with Gerry and he'd perhaps you know fling a cupboard open and just have a look and, ah you know and just shut the door and you know in a vein, desperate hope that she might have been err you know in, in the wardrobe or something, and then he, you know flung him, flung himself on the floor and just you know kicking the floor and just with, you know, she's gone, she's gone, err and then as I say, I, I, after that I can't really say exactly, you know. We kept meeting up at stages in the evening to, to try and appraise the situation and you know what shall we do, err.' (DP)
Eddie's first alert was in that bedroom.
The parents said they knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted. Nevertheless umpteen people searched the flat. Gerald seemed fixated on that wardrobe for some reason. Did Madeleine have a habit of hiding in her parent's wardrobes, I wonder?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 06, 2015, 01:00:56 PM
The parents said they knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted. Nevertheless umpteen people searched the flat. Gerald seemed fixated on that wardrobe for some reason. Did Madeleine have a habit of hiding in her parent's wardrobes, I wonder?
A wardrobe is a common place for a child to hide in, as any parent who plays "hide & seek" with their child would know.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 06, 2015, 02:32:01 PM
The parents said they knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted. Nevertheless umpteen people searched the flat. Gerald seemed fixated on that wardrobe for some reason. Did Madeleine have a habit of hiding in her parent's wardrobes, I wonder?
Gerry seemed fixated? Can you elaborate on this fixation please? Does checking the wardrobe = a fixation?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 01:22:39 AM
The parents said they knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted. Nevertheless umpteen people searched the flat. Gerald seemed fixated on that wardrobe for some reason. Did Madeleine have a habit of hiding in her parent's wardrobes, I wonder?
Can anyone name umpteen people who searched the apartment? Certainly not CP - she would have done - but was stopped by "'No, no. She's not here, she's not here"
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 01:46:57 AM
"opened all the cupboards" (Roque statement) Opening a cupboard tests the hinges that's all. That is not searching.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2015, 10:00:09 AM
"opened all the cupboards" (Roque statement) Opening a cupboard tests the hinges that's all. That is not searching.
Pegasus!! ... not even I would suggest that the GNR soldiers "opened all the cupboards" to "test the hinges". They were looking for a child who they assumed was hiding for mischief or hiding for fright.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 07, 2015, 10:42:59 AM
Can anyone name umpteen people who searched the apartment? Certainly not CP - she would have done - but was stopped by "'No, no. She's not here, she's not here"
Who is CP? Kate, Fiona, Amy. two GNR Officers and some unnamed 'employees'; searched the apartment.
After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, the interviewee went back, scared and shocked, to the restaurant, to alert her husband and the others to the disappearance. The whole group then set about searching for Madeleine throughout the complex, looked in all the buildings, swimming pool, tennis courts etc....as well as in the apartment with the help of employees, who, at the same time, contacted the authorities. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
And I looked, I looked throughout the whole apartment and I looked in all the cupboards, under the drawers, under the beds, behind the curtains, everywhere, erm, just, you know, trying to, knowing it had already been done, but you just do. Erm, tut, I looked, when I went into the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine, erm, Madeleine's bed was sort of folded back, the sheets, quite kind of neatly really, erm, Sean and Amelie were fast asleep in their cots, they didn't stir, you know, I was opening the cupboards in the room and moving around the room, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
After having searched the apartment and verified that the girl was not there, the outside searches were begun. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
the deponent states that they searched al the dependencies of the residence and all the pieces of furniture, in order to confirm the disappearance -- effectively confirming that that she was not in the interior; José Maria Batista Roque - Statement, 07 May 2007
Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa - Statement, 17 October 2007
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 03:57:45 PM
The source for "No, no. She's not here, she's not here" is the Dispatches transcript here http://www.mccannfiles.com/id460.html Scientifically "umpteen" means "at least 13". Five people is not "umpteen" and anyway none of those 5 searched the apartment completely - they did a very incomplete search based on assumptions.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 07, 2015, 04:05:06 PM
The source for "No, no. She's not here, she's not here" is the Dispatches transcript here http://www.mccannfiles.com/id460.html Scientifically "umpteen" means "at least 13". Five people is not "umpteen" and anyway none of those 5 searched the apartment completely - they did a very incomplete search based on assumptions.
CP states categorically in her official statement (s) that she never entered the apartment on 3rd May.
How many 'employees' searched the apartment then? Kate doesn't say.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 04:12:23 PM
Pegasus!! ... not even I would suggest that the GNR soldiers "opened all the cupboards" to "test the hinges". They were looking for a child who they assumed was hiding for mischief or hiding for fright.
IMO only one GNR ever searched the apartment. Of the original GNR pair, one searched apartment while IMO the other stood in hall. The 3rd GNR man to arrive was the station commander and he certainly didn't search the apartment, didn't even enter it actually. The entire police (GNR plus PJ) search of the apartment that night amounts in total to a quick search by one GNR officer, that's all.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
(snip) ... How many 'employees' searched the apartment then? Kate doesn't say.
The only employee I can remember who searched the apartment was AT who you mentioned. Managers JH and SB didn't, CP certainly didn't, EK didn't, LJ didn't. Did I miss anyone?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 05:29:28 PM
Can anyone name any other employee who searched the apartment? If not then the grand total is 1.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 07, 2015, 06:13:20 PM
So the PJ assertion that the McCanns had permitted the crime scene to be contaminated by all & sundry was true or false?
Obviously people should search the apartment before GNR arrive, so some contimination was inevitable (although messing with the shutter was uncalled for). The problem is that so few were allowed to search it, and that those few who did search the apartment did so very incompletely.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 08:04:12 PM
IMO only five people searched the apartment that night 3 group members KM GM FP - the other 6 did not. 1 employee AT - the other dozens of employees did not. 1 GNR (one of the Costa/Roque team) - no other GNR searched the apartment. 0 PJ - read their statements - they were told GNR had searched it so they didn't. Total 5 that whole night. Please post if I missed anyone?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2015, 08:14:06 PM
IMO only five people searched the apartment that night 3 group members KM GM FP - the other 6 did not. 1 employee AT - the other dozens of employees did not. 1 GNR (one of the Costa/Roque team) - no other GNR searched the apartment. 0 PJ - read their statements - they were told GNR had searched it so they didn't. Total 5 that whole night. Please post if I missed anyone?
Apartment 5A is not a stately mansion complete with attics, cellars, priest holes and secret passages.
It is a small two bed flat.
Where do you suppose Madeleine was secreted within if you feel it was not adequately searched?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 08:25:08 PM
Apartment 5A is not a stately mansion complete with attics, cellars, priest holes and secret passages.
It is a small two bed flat.
Where do you suppose Madeleine was secreted within if you feel it was not adequately searched?
I'm not writing a theory I'm just noting places in the apartment that were not searched that night according to the statements. For a start, none of the 5 people who searched the apartment that night mention pulling out the sofa to look behind it, yet it looks like it had been pulled out then pushed back all the way to the wall. That's just one place, there are more Brietta.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2015, 08:57:20 PM
I'm not writing a theory I'm just noting places in the apartment that were not searched that night according to the statements. For a start, none of the 5 people who searched the apartment that night mention pulling out the sofa to look behind it, yet it looks like it had been pulled out then pushed back all the way to the wall. That's just one place, there are more Brietta.
The curtain was disturbed and caught back suggestive of the sofa being pulled out and behind the curtain checked for what people hoped was a sleeping child.
People will have looked where it was possible for Madeleine to secrete herself. Desperation will have made them look in places she could not possibly have accessed.
In the absence of properly recorded statements with the correct questions being asked ... we have no idea exactly what actions were performed.
However, I think it is risible to suggest the apartment was not thoroughly searched.
Perhaps of more interest should be the open window suggestive of an intruder and why standard procedures for dealing with that eventuality were not immediately instituted.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 09:04:59 PM
The curtain was disturbed and caught back suggestive of the sofa being pulled out and behind the curtain checked for what people hoped was a sleeping child...(snip)
Precisely Brietta I agree in the PJ photo it looks like someone pulled the sofa out then pushed it back 1. Why does no statement mention pulling the sofa out to search behind it? 2. If someone did pull the sofa out to search behind it and found nothing, why then push it back?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 09:09:30 PM
If anyone did search in the top cupboards, why did they then close the doors afterwards? And people claim the whole apartment was searched?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2015, 09:13:39 PM
Precisely Brietta I agree in the PJ photo it looks like someone pulled the sofa out then pushed it back 1. Why does no statement mention pulling the sofa out to search behind it? 2. If someone did pull the sofa out to search behind it and found nothing, why then push it back?
Why not?
Exactly as ... why not close wardrobe doors after opening them?
But why ignore a possible intrusion into the apartment when it was apparent Madeleine was nowhere to be found?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 09:32:51 PM
Exactly as ... why not close wardrobe doors after opening them?
But why ignore a possible intrusion into the apartment when it was apparent Madeleine was nowhere to be found?
The top cupboard doors would not be any nuisance if left open. But I see four shut top cupboard doors in a PJ photo that night. That means that either no-one opened those top cupboard doors that night to search inside (which would prove beyond doubt that the search of the apartment was incomplete), or that someone did open them to search inside but then (despite being in the middle of a panicked urgent search) closed them again to maintain tidiness or something like that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 09:40:05 PM
(snip)... But why ignore a possible intrusion into the apartment when it was apparent Madeleine was nowhere to be found?
I am certainly not ignoring the fact that an intending intruder opened the window and shutter Brietta - I've already said that is the reason the child left the childrens room and went to another room - wouldn't you? That's exactly why I'm interested in the incomplete search of the other rooms.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 07, 2015, 10:38:16 PM
If anyone did search in the top cupboards, why did they then close the doors afterwards? And people claim the whole apartment was searched?
Not sure what youre getting at here
- that Madeleine somehow managed to get into a top cupboard? How? - that an intruder put her there? Why?
....??
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 10:40:28 PM
Is it possible that from day 1 to today, for 8 and a half years, the GNR, the Amaral PJ, the Rebelo PJ, the Redwood SY, the current PJ, and the current SY, (and all forum peeps and PIs), have all set themselves the wrong problem to solve?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2015, 10:41:05 PM
The top cupboard doors would not be any nuisance if left open. But I see four shut top cupboard doors in a PJ photo that night. That means that either no-one opened those top cupboard doors that night to search inside (which would prove beyond doubt that the search of the apartment was incomplete), or that someone did open them to search inside but then (despite being in the middle of a panicked urgent search) closed them again to maintain tidiness or something like that.
IMO it would be a normal action if opening a door to rummage in clothes or spare bedding while looking for a missing child ... to close the door before progressing the search. In the absence of detailed statements or police notebooks ... all is speculation and I am not quite sure exactly why you are labouring it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 10:44:57 PM
Theories and assumptions have no place in a complete search Mercury.
I understand where you are coming from, I remember you posting about the police not searchng the loft properly after dogs alerted in the Tia Sharpe case....IIRC...now that WAS a bit remiss to say the least...but I cant join the dots here of why it mattered in this case that they didnt search every cm properly
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2015, 10:51:31 PM
I am certainly not ignoring the fact that an intending intruder opened the window and shutter Brietta - I've already said that is the reason the child left the childrens room and went to another room - wouldn't you? That's exactly why I'm interested in the incomplete search of the other rooms.
Where we part company on this one is that in my opinion there was an intrusion into the apartment. It is also my opinion ... based on protocols which should be enacted when a child goes missing ... that the search should have been widened as soon as possible when Madeleine could not be found.
It doesn't matter how often with how many you search an apartment ... if the object of your search is not there ... you will not find it. Madeleine McCann was not in the apartment or she would have been found. I believe that by the time the GNR were on the scene she was secreted elsewhere or well on the way out of Luz.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 10:53:06 PM
IMO it would be a normal action if opening a door to rummage in clothes or spare bedding while looking for a missing child ... to close the door before progressing the search. In the absence of detailed statements or police notebooks ... all is speculation and I am not quite sure exactly why you are labouring it.
IMO in an urgent search it's pointless to close cupboard doors.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2015, 11:01:04 PM
IMO in an urgent search it's pointless to close cupboard doors.
It is a case of practicality and instinct ... or even someone coming behind and closing the doors. We simply cannot know the exact circumstances within the apartment and the crime scene photographs depict a wardrobe door ajar.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 11:04:27 PM
Where we part company on this one is that in my opinion there was an intrusion into the apartment. It is also my opinion ... based on protocols which should be enacted when a child goes missing ... that the search should have been widened as soon as possible when Madeleine could not be found.
It doesn't matter how often with how many you search an apartment ... if the object of your search is not there ... you will not find it. Madeleine McCann was not in the apartment or she would have been found. I believe that by the time the GNR were on the scene she was secreted elsewhere or well on the way out of Luz.
If the search missed even just one physically big enough space then the search was absolutely incomplete.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2015, 11:10:32 PM
It is a case of practicality and instinct ... or even someone coming behind and closing the doors. We simply cannot know the exact circumstances within the apartment and the crime scene photographs depict a wardrobe door ajar.
But what about the 4 completely closed doors here Brietta? Not saying they are relevant - just saying the search was incomplete. ETA http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww159/Sashamorsal/McCannsWardrobe.jpg
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 07, 2015, 11:20:42 PM
But what about the closed doors Brietta? Not saying they are relevant - just saying the search was incomplete.
We do not know that the search was incomplete. Despite being wrapped in plastic the smell of decomposition from the loft space in Tia Sharpe's grandmother's house was evident. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/13/tia-sharp-body-smell-decomposition
Therefore if the search for Madeleine was incomplete, as was the search for Tia, with the passing of time why wouldn't she have been found?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 07, 2015, 11:38:05 PM
We do not know that the search was incomplete. Despite being wrapped in plastic the smell of decomposition from the loft space in Tia Sharpe's grandmother's house was evident. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/13/tia-sharp-body-smell-decomposition
Therefore if the search for Madeleine was incomplete, as was the search for Tia, with the passing of time why wouldn't she have been found?
You've given an example of how about 20 experts can guarantee they've done a complete search of a small premises, when in fact what they've done is an almost complete search. The thing about search is, if it is a tiny bit less than complete, then it is certainly incomplete.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 07, 2015, 11:43:13 PM
top cupboards are just example of places which in the PJ photos look like they were not searched - understandably maybe because who would think of looking there - it just serves to prove "incomplete" that's all - there are other places too
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 08, 2015, 12:09:15 AM
People who actually searched the apartment that night are 2 parents, 1 friend, 1 employee, 1 GNR, 0 PJ, total 5, please someone add to this list?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 08, 2015, 12:09:51 AM
top cupboards are just example of places which in the PJ photos look like they were not searched - understandably maybe because who would think of looking there - it just serves to prove "incomplete" that's all - there are other places too
Yes but you didnt answer my question, ie, what difference would it make
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 08, 2015, 12:17:05 AM
The big difference is lofts are very draughty Mercury.
?
Ok, so Madeleine could have been swept out the flat by the wind? I wish you would just say exactly what you mean instead of making others feel they are in a game show trying to find the answer
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 08, 2015, 01:00:52 AM
Ok, so Madeleine could have been swept out the flat by the wind? I wish you would just say exactly what you mean instead of making others feel they are in a game show trying to find the answer
Someone mentioned another case, I was pointing out that draughtiness was an additional reason for it taking 7 days to solve, but of course the main reasons were incomplete search, and making a wrong assumption.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 08, 2015, 01:52:26 AM
Anyone ever get an exam question you can't answer and then afterwards you find no-one could because the question was wrong? That's how this case is looking IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 08, 2015, 10:07:20 PM
Someone mentioned another case, I was pointing out that draughtiness was an additional reason for it taking 7 days to solve, but of course the main reasons were incomplete search, and making a wrong assumption.
oK, let me get this straight
There was not a complete search so Madeleine could have been in 5a durng the search, then...? Someone found her? That person obviously if so, must have hidden her further. Or the killer came back and removed her? Struggling.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 09, 2015, 12:50:26 AM
There was not a complete search so Madeleine could have been in 5a durng the search, then...? Someone found her? That person obviously if so, must have hidden her further. Or the killer came back and removed her? Struggling.
IMO someone opened the shutter and window from outside causing the child to leave that room and that's as far as I got Mercury. Re the search inside pedantically IMO it wasn't technically fully complete, that's all, and it's possibly irrelevant.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 09, 2015, 02:08:27 AM
IMO someone opened the shutter and window from outside causing the child to leave that room and that's as far as I got Mercury. Re the search inside pedantically IMO it wasn't technically fully complete, that's all, and it's possibly irrelevant.
I think it is irrelevant.
You have dismissed a hiding place behind the bath panel.
The apartment had no loft. Did we ever discover if there was crawl space underneath?
**Snip Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see the washing machine. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA.htm
All the cupboards were checked so I think that would include the top cupboards. Bit of a mystery about not seeing the washing machine as that would almost certainly have been a place it would have been possible for a small child to fit.
I really do not think the searches of the apartment overlooked Madeleine.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 09, 2015, 02:27:45 AM
You have dismissed a hiding place behind the bath panel.
The apartment had no loft. Did we ever discover if there was crawl space underneath?
**Snip Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see the washing machine. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA.htm
All the cupboards were checked so I think that would include the top cupboards. Bit of a mystery about not seeing the washing machine as that would almost certainly have been a place it would have been possible for a small child to fit.
I really do not think the searches of the apartment overlooked Madeleine.
Does he mention pulling the sofa out to look behind it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 09, 2015, 03:04:39 AM
(snip)... You have dismissed a hiding place behind the bath panel.
The apartment had no loft. Did we ever discover if there was crawl space underneath? ...(snip)
As far as I can see the side of the bath is possibly masonry with no panel but there is only a few seconds video footage to go by, need to look at PJ footage of the 4 similar apartments. So the following is of academic interest only but believe it or not there was once a case where police despite spending 5 days forensically searching a residence completely failed to even consider this. Agreed apartment has no loft. Block has a lift engine room on top. I don't know whether sub-floor volume is completely filled.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2015, 07:02:34 AM
I think Eddie would have pinpointed the area if a cadaver had still been in, under or around the apartment in August 2007, so if Madeleine was hidden anywhere on the premises in May she must have been moved later. How, i can't imagine. (Eddie alerted with his head up, which meant there was just an odour. If there had been anything to actually find his head would have been down)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2015, 07:47:32 AM
I think Eddie would have pinpointed the area if a cadaver had still been in, under or around the apartment in August 2007, so if Madeleine was hidden anywhere on the premises in May she must have been moved later. How, i can't imagine. (Eddie alerted with his head up, which meant there was just an odour. If there had been anything to actually find his head would have been down)
you are placing too much reliance on the dogs...non of eddie's alerts indicate the presence of any odour
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 09, 2015, 08:25:18 AM
And neither is yours Grimes opinion is of more importance and he says the alerts suggested cadaver odour Not that they were to cadaver odour
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 10, 2015, 01:41:37 AM
How many police (GNR and PJ) actually searched the apartment that night 3/4 May? IMO a grand total of ... 1.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 11, 2015, 01:47:48 AM
I have read about a case where an innocent relative literally punched a UK detect. for in retrospect failing to search completely the premises
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 11, 2015, 11:30:12 AM
What I fail to understand is, to get cadaver odour in the first place a body has to be left for an hour and a half.
So, if Eddie alerted to cadaver odour behind the sofa [I believe he alerted to blood] then Madeleine would have had to have been there for about an hour and a half. So when would this have happened?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2015, 01:04:36 PM
Could we please try to stick to The Topic.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 12, 2015, 01:13:20 AM
@Lace child was seen alive and well at about 2105 ...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 12, 2015, 10:47:15 AM
What I fail to understand is, to get cadaver odour in the first place a body has to be left for an hour and a half.
So, if Eddie alerted to cadaver odour behind the sofa [I believe he alerted to blood] then Madeleine would have had to have been there for about an hour and a half. So when would this have happened?
If Eddie alerted to blood
and Madeleine bled on or before 3 may 2007
and Eddie alerted on ... whatever - months later
would the blood have been dead enough for Eddie to alert?
Now, if we were sure that Eddie alerted only to dead bodies, as opposed to dead blood, then Eddie's alerts would be interesting.
If the substance Eddie alerted to was Madeleine's blood, then given the long time that had elapsed since Madeleine disappeared before Eddie searched, I would be really worried by non-dead blood. That would be into the Madeleine-was-an-alien bucket.
Dead blood tells us nothing about how long a potentially dead Madeleine was behind the couch.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2015, 11:15:43 AM
would the blood have been dead enough for Eddie to alert?
Now, if we were sure that Eddie alerted only to dead bodies, as opposed to dead blood, then Eddie's alerts would be interesting.
If the substance Eddie alerted to was Madeleine's blood, then given the long time that had elapsed since Madeleine disappeared before Eddie searched, I would be really worried by non-dead blood. That would be into the Madeleine-was-an-alien bucket.
Dead blood tells us nothing about how long a potentially dead Madeleine was behind the couch.
eddie alerts to blood from a live person
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2015, 11:22:07 AM
Well pegasus her body was never found in 5a at the time or beyond so im struggling to see the point
Well Mercury , just pointing out that the available evidence is that the search (as recorded in statements) inside the property boundaries was incomplete.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 13, 2015, 04:04:53 AM
Well Mercury , just pointing out that the available evidence is that the search (as recorded in statements) inside the property boundaries was incomplete.
you need to say why this might be a problem here
Undiscovered corpse? That was moved somehow later?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 13, 2015, 12:04:39 PM
Until the arrival of the British in (was it July 2007)? the McCanns (as now) were considered victims of a crime, jointly with their daughter.
So why should anyone have looked behind the sofa?
Why bother with any forensics in the flat if you guess, in advance, where you might or might not find evidence?
Was the parents bedroom checked or not? Was the bathroom checked or not? Was the kitchen checked or not? Did the forensics team just go for the children's bedroom and the 'traffic routes' indicated in their report?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 13, 2015, 10:21:23 PM
Why bother with any forensics in the flat if you guess, in advance, where you might or might not find evidence?
Was the parents bedroom checked or not? Was the bathroom checked or not? Was the kitchen checked or not? Did the forensics team just go for the children's bedroom and the 'traffic routes' indicated in their report?
The PJ in May did ZERO forensics in the parents bedroom - not a print - not a hair - nothing.
And ZERO forensics near that sofa and window in the lounge - never even pulled it out IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 14, 2015, 12:49:17 AM
It would certainly be interesting to ask the Lisbon forensic team if they looked behind that sofa, and if so, how that check was conducted.
Here is proof - the plan of forensics done on 4th May http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2322.jpg The coloured areas numbered 1 to 7 are where they did forensics. The uncoloured areas are where they did absolutely no forensics. Behind sofa = no forensics. South bedroom wardrobes = no forensics. Garden = no forensics Bathroom = no forensics. Obviously IMO the PJ didn't search the uncoloured areas at all.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 14, 2015, 12:59:57 AM
I think the op ws referring to parental searches
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 14, 2015, 01:19:55 AM
Forensics 4th May
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 14, 2015, 01:34:00 AM
It's the same psychology of incomplete search Merc
Not really. The first search of the apartment was for a specific entity i.e. Madeleine. The options for undiscovered concealment were limited. The forensic search was for non-specific material, the presence of which may or may not have provided part of any evidence as to what happened in 5a that night. The range of possibilities from examination of such materials was extensive, without inclusion of the areas within the apartment & its perimeters the forensic team were presumably told to ignore. It was a perfect setting for an abduction.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 14, 2015, 12:25:43 PM
I thought I WOULD BRING THIS OVER HERE before it got swiped for not being on topic. lace had said they searched where Maddie may have wandered; then changed to: quote from Lace "Maybe I should have phrased it differently 'they searched the places where Madeleine had been that week'. Witnesses saw Gerry searching, Kate went out too, the friends searched."
But she hadn't wandered. Kate said she knew instantly that Maddie had been abducted, mind you she forgot to tell the police ON THE PHONE that her daughter was abducted because they were all looking for a child who may indeed have wandred. But let's not let a little thing like that get in the way of a bloody good story.
What were they searching for? an abductor who was hiding with a almost naked child, on a cold night outside, who slept through it all? um..sure thing , like that is believable.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 14, 2015, 05:08:52 PM
I thought I WOULD BRING THIS OVER HERE before it got swiped for not being on topic. lace had said they searched where Maddie may have wandered; then changed to: quote from Lace "Maybe I should have phrased it differently 'they searched the places where Madeleine had been that week'. Witnesses saw Gerry searching, Kate went out too, the friends searched."
But she hadn't wandered. Kate said she knew instantly that Maddie had been abducted, mind you she forgot to tell the police ON THE PHONE that her daughter was abducted because they were all looking for a child who may indeed have wandred. But let's not let a little thing like that get in the way of a bloody good story.
What were they searching for? an abductor who was hiding with a almost naked child, on a cold night outside, who slept through it all? um..sure thing , like that is believable.
When did Kate speak to the police on the phone?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 14, 2015, 10:17:58 PM
Huge assumptions were made in search, with no logical justification. See the assumption-map I posted: 50% of the apartment completely ignored by PJ on 4th May, because of nothing but assumptions. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5348.0;attach=5838;image Next I am making an assumption-map of T6 search
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 14, 2015, 10:30:07 PM
Huge assumptions were made in search, with no logical justification. See the assumption-map I posted: 50% of the apartment completely ignored by PJ on 4th May, because of nothing but assumptions. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5348.0;attach=5838;image Next I am making an assumption-map of T6 search
Which goes to prove they were looking for evidence of an abductor and not gunnng for the Mccanns from day one as some assert
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 14, 2015, 10:49:24 PM
Which goes to prove they were looking for evidence of an abductor and not gunnng for the Mccanns from day one as some assert
That's true Mercury, but what are interesting are the (red) areas PJ excluded from their forensic search. 50% of the apartment. Basically a missing Lord and the Holy Grail and some unknown Shakespeare works could have been there - and PJ would have been none the wiser.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 14, 2015, 10:55:36 PM
That's true Mercury, but what are interesting are the (red) areas PJ excluded from their forensic search. Basically a missing Lord and the Holy Grail and some unknown Shakespeare works could have been there - and PJ would have been none the wiser.
Not sure what you mean but loving the prose
8**8:/:
Many criticise the police for x y z I tend to agree, as a humble layman, the whole flat should have been swept
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 14, 2015, 11:01:24 PM
Which goes to prove they were looking for evidence of an abductor and not gunnng for the Mccanns from day one as some assert
No, it proves that the investigators failed in their duty to collect all available forensic deposits at the crime scene. Who would have determined the areas to be scoped & tested?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 14, 2015, 11:03:54 PM
No, it proves that the investigators failed in their duty to collect all available forensic deposits at the crime scene. Who would have determined the areas to be scoped & tested?
No idea, sorry
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 14, 2015, 11:17:06 PM
No, it proves that the investigators failed in their duty to collect all available forensic deposits at the crime scene. Who would have determined the areas to be scoped & tested?
Yes I agree PJ forensics on 4th May should have searched whole apartment and garden. Why did the PJ forensics search on 4th May find absolutely nothing at the 3 locations at 5A later signalled by Eddie? Because they didn't search any of those 3 places - see the plan I posted - all 3 locations are in red areas - not searched.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 14, 2015, 11:21:05 PM
Yes I agree PJ forensics on 4th May should have searched whole apartment and garden. Why did the PJ forensics search on 4th May find absolutely nothing at the 3 locations at 5A later signalled by Eddie? Because they didn't search any of those 3 places - see the plan I posted - all 3 locations are in red areas - not searched.
Forensics people cant find the scent of death peg or blood under tiles if you want to include that
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 14, 2015, 11:30:48 PM
PJ cannot possibly know what on early 4th was or wasn't in any of the 50%+ they didn't forensically search.
No, true, but if there was no body, would not have found evidence of it potentially being there aka eddies alerts that you brought up OR blood that was invisible
It remains a question why the police did nit search the whole flat forensically though
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 15, 2015, 12:20:48 AM
Answer to the 6 places not searched that night by DP ROB MO DW question is child bedroom, adult bedroom, hall, kitchen, bathroom, living area.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 15, 2015, 03:18:40 PM
What searching did Gerald McCann do?
When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they stayed inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way.
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
The receptionist saw him with John Hill. If it was at the time of the second call to the GNR that would be 10.50pm.
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 15, 2015, 04:11:26 PM
Three group members who did do hours of frantic searching that night are ROB MO DP Here is a map of the area they searched (green) which extends out as far as the beach, and Millennium. And the two areas they didn't search (red). The inner red area is magnified of scale by about x50 so you can see it. The outer red area is obviously the whole world. Looks a bit like a giant green mint?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 15, 2015, 10:26:27 PM
Looks like a button but missing three holes lol
You have a bee in your bonnett about no one searching the flat properly, if it doesnt connect then why?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 15, 2015, 10:51:44 PM
You have a bee in your bonnett about no one searching the flat properly, if it doesnt connect then why?
Maybe because the cadaver dog alerts all occurred in areas which had not been searched by independent witnesses for a child or by the PJ for forensics? (which meant, of course, if you wished to plant any evidence in those places at a later stage it may be hard for an innocent person to explain away but equally would be inadmissible in court)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 16, 2015, 02:02:33 AM
You have a bee in your bonnett about no one searching the flat properly, if it doesnt connect then why?
Because it's potenzaially important Merc
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 16, 2015, 03:34:28 AM
Map of seach area searched by the GNR commander - btw his statement says "he did not enter the apartment" and yet "carried out a search in a GNR car of all the places the child could be" - so please see previous map with a hole in the middle to save me posting it again. So many cases,feature this absurd hole-in-the-middke search mantra.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Admin on November 16, 2015, 01:37:42 PM
This is my final warning.
If posters continue to post off topic content they will be sanctioned.
Admin
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on November 16, 2015, 02:22:53 PM
Absolutely totally understandable Not something that the average person would do but tha mccanns aren't average
Seemingly not given they went on holiday as a family of five and came back a foursome.
But seriously, they knew bloody well that the journalists would be out snapping them which rather says it all. If they were really interested in running they could have got a lift to one of the numerous out of the way coastal paths which line the Portuguese coast and did their jogging there. But not Kate and Gerry, another me moment for the cameras!
So in answer to the question as to what actual searching was there, not a lot!!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 16, 2015, 03:15:46 PM
Seemingly not given they went on holiday as a family of five and came back a foursome.
But seriously, they knew bloody well that the journalists would be out snapping them which rather says it all. If they were really interested in running they could have got a lift to one of the numerous out of the way coastal paths which line the Portuguese coast and did their jogging there. But not Kate and Gerry, another me moment for the cameras!
So in answer to the question as to what actual searching was there, not a lot!!
Precisely Angelo.
The mccanns clearly loved photo opportunities.
The mere idea that they didn't know they would be observed and photographed is beyond belief.
They have courted publicity since 2007.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 03:19:12 PM
Seemingly not given they went on holiday as a family of five and came back a foursome.
But seriously, they knew bloody well that the journalists would be out snapping them which rather says it all. If they were really interested in running they could have got a lift to one of the numerous out of the way coastal paths which line the Portuguese coast and did their jogging there. But not Kate and Gerry, another me moment for the cameras!
So in answer to the question as to what actual searching was there, not a lot!!
Continuing off topic to answer your accusation The journalists would have followed them This thread is about searching Why divert to make it another slagging off thread
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 16, 2015, 03:32:19 PM
Continuing off topic to answer your accusation The journalists would have followed them This thread is about searching Why divert to make it another slagging off thread
Bottom line.
The mccanns after the morning following her disappearance did no searching themselves.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 03:44:05 PM
As one does when a missing child is not found after an immediate search of the area.
The search for Madeleine goes on
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
On the footpath, four Portuguese firefighters in red cotton overalls are prodding the undergrowth with sticks, searching for any trace of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann.
The firefighters are giving up their day off to join in the search.
"It's a strange feeling," admits their team leader. "We are fathers also."
A wiry, sunburned man in his mid-forties, he brushes away any mention of the gratitude the McCanns have expressed to all those who are helping with the search.
"The best reward would be to find little Madeleine."
The firefighters are waiting for a boat so they can search the reservoir, about 15 miles from Praia da Luz where the McCann family were staying.
This is the worst-case scenario.
It would take two or three days for a body thrown into the water to decompose and form the gases which would cause it to rise to the surface. Hence the reservoir is only being searched now.
An hour and a half later, the boat finally appears. The crew are not wearing their lifejackets and tie them on hastily when they see the television camera.
This is the nature of this investigation - spontaneity, hard graft, and, at the centre, a tragedy.
By the time we leave, there is nothing to indicate that Madeleine was ever near the reservoir - it is just one more possibility crossed off the list. (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42902000/jpg/_42902439_maddysearch2_getty203b.jpg) British tourists search disused well for Madeleine McCann British holidaymakers have joined in the desperate search http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6638793.stm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 16, 2015, 04:45:02 PM
As one does when a missing child is not found after an immediate search of the area.
The search for Madeleine goes on
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
On the footpath, four Portuguese firefighters in red cotton overalls are prodding the undergrowth with sticks, searching for any trace of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann.
The firefighters are giving up their day off to join in the search.
"It's a strange feeling," admits their team leader. "We are fathers also."
A wiry, sunburned man in his mid-forties, he brushes away any mention of the gratitude the McCanns have expressed to all those who are helping with the search.
"The best reward would be to find little Madeleine."
The firefighters are waiting for a boat so they can search the reservoir, about 15 miles from Praia da Luz where the McCann family were staying.
This is the worst-case scenario.
It would take two or three days for a body thrown into the water to decompose and form the gases which would cause it to rise to the surface. Hence the reservoir is only being searched now.
An hour and a half later, the boat finally appears. The crew are not wearing their lifejackets and tie them on hastily when they see the television camera.
This is the nature of this investigation - spontaneity, hard graft, and, at the centre, a tragedy.
By the time we leave, there is nothing to indicate that Madeleine was ever near the reservoir - it is just one more possibility crossed off the list. (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42902000/jpg/_42902439_maddysearch2_getty203b.jpg) British tourists search disused well for Madeleine McCann British holidaymakers have joined in the desperate search http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6638793.stm
People searching, but not the mccanns.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 16, 2015, 05:18:39 PM
The first interview with Jane Hill from the BBC - 25 May 2007
This interview is interesting as it is the first interview given by the McCanns after the disappearance of Madeleine. They had previously only given short, scripted statements.
Perhaps the most revealing question in the interview is this one:
Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."
Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back."
What is significant in Kate's answer here?
Four things: Kate's displacement from the event, her inability to express what 'she' actually felt, an apparent, almost desperate, desire to promote a 'united' front and a reluctance to commit an answer to the question.
It is significant that she says "the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult". Her use of the word 'are' instead of 'were' is very revealing. It's as though she's quoting something that she has been advised by a counsellor. 'The first 48 hours are the most difficult'. What she has done here is displaced herself from the scene and is reporting on it, not from it.
It is also revealing how she uses the word 'you' and, again, shows her displacement. She says: "after that you get strength from somewhere". Why is she using 'you' in this sentence? The interviewer has asked her for her personal feelings. Why doesn't she say 'I got strength...' or 'we got strength...' Again, she is placing herself outside the event, looking in.
She uses the word 'we' six times in this brief quote because it would appear she's struggling to answer it, without revealing that she has never actually searched for her missing daughter. Use of the word 'we' and also 'us', which is mentioned twice along with Gerry's name, suggests she's trying to hide under a 'united' front. This suggests she feels vulnerable and needs the support and leadership from Gerry to continue. The overall impression given is that they are not individuals, with their own feelings, but a team who will not be diverted from the path they have chosen.
She also mentions the word 'really' three times, which could be interpreted as a conscious, or subconscious, desire to convince the interviewer, and those watching, that she 'really' is telling the truth.
It would appear from this passage that she's telling us, in a displaced way, how she thinks 'they' should feel, not how 'she' herself really did feel. Why? Is it because she is nervous in her first interview or could it be because she doesn't know how someone who has had their daughter abducted really feels?
Ultimately, Kate's answer, despite being wrapped in curious passages where she feels compelled to mention the support they've received, is quite shocking.
The fact is, despite locals giving up work for a week to search the beach and streets for Madeleine, she has admitted that she never actually did any physical searching for her missing daughter.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 05:27:31 PM
The first interview with Jane Hill from the BBC - 25 May 2007
This interview is interesting as it is the first interview given by the McCanns after the disappearance of Madeleine. They had previously only given short, scripted statements.
Perhaps the most revealing question in the interview is this one:
Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."
Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back."
What is significant in Kate's answer here?
Four things: Kate's displacement from the event, her inability to express what 'she' actually felt, an apparent, almost desperate, desire to promote a 'united' front and a reluctance to commit an answer to the question.
It is significant that she says "the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult". Her use of the word 'are' instead of 'were' is very revealing. It's as though she's quoting something that she has been advised by a counsellor. 'The first 48 hours are the most difficult'. What she has done here is displaced herself from the scene and is reporting on it, not from it.
It is also revealing how she uses the word 'you' and, again, shows her displacement. She says: "after that you get strength from somewhere". Why is she using 'you' in this sentence? The interviewer has asked her for her personal feelings. Why doesn't she say 'I got strength...' or 'we got strength...' Again, she is placing herself outside the event, looking in.
She uses the word 'we' six times in this brief quote because it would appear she's struggling to answer it, without revealing that she has never actually searched for her missing daughter. Use of the word 'we' and also 'us', which is mentioned twice along with Gerry's name, suggests she's trying to hide under a 'united' front. This suggests she feels vulnerable and needs the support and leadership from Gerry to continue. The overall impression given is that they are not individuals, with their own feelings, but a team who will not be diverted from the path they have chosen.
She also mentions the word 'really' three times, which could be interpreted as a conscious, or subconscious, desire to convince the interviewer, and those watching, that she 'really' is telling the truth.
It would appear from this passage that she's telling us, in a displaced way, how she thinks 'they' should feel, not how 'she' herself really did feel. Why? Is it because she is nervous in her first interview or could it be because she doesn't know how someone who has had their daughter abducted really feels?
Ultimately, Kate's answer, despite being wrapped in curious passages where she feels compelled to mention the support they've received, is quite shocking.
The fact is, despite locals giving up work for a week to search the beach and streets for Madeleine, she has admitted that she never actually did any physical searching for her missing daughter.
Kate did search so what you are saying isn't true
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 05:29:35 PM
I don't think any reasonable person would have expected Kate to search when what they were effectively looking for was Maddie's body
It is positively discouraged for very pragmatic reasons. If a parent were to stumble over their deceased child ... the immediate reaction would be to rush to the body probably destroying evidence in the process but certainly disturbing the crime scene.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 05:40:42 PM
The first interview with Jane Hill from the BBC - 25 May 2007
This interview is interesting as it is the first interview given by the McCanns after the disappearance of Madeleine. They had previously only given short, scripted statements.
Perhaps the most revealing question in the interview is this one:
Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."
Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back."
What is significant in Kate's answer here?
Four things: Kate's displacement from the event, her inability to express what 'she' actually felt, an apparent, almost desperate, desire to promote a 'united' front and a reluctance to commit an answer to the question.
It is significant that she says "the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult". Her use of the word 'are' instead of 'were' is very revealing. It's as though she's quoting something that she has been advised by a counsellor. 'The first 48 hours are the most difficult'. What she has done here is displaced herself from the scene and is reporting on it, not from it.
It is also revealing how she uses the word 'you' and, again, shows her displacement. She says: "after that you get strength from somewhere". Why is she using 'you' in this sentence? The interviewer has asked her for her personal feelings. Why doesn't she say 'I got strength...' or 'we got strength...' Again, she is placing herself outside the event, looking in.
She uses the word 'we' six times in this brief quote because it would appear she's struggling to answer it, without revealing that she has never actually searched for her missing daughter. Use of the word 'we' and also 'us', which is mentioned twice along with Gerry's name, suggests she's trying to hide under a 'united' front. This suggests she feels vulnerable and needs the support and leadership from Gerry to continue. The overall impression given is that they are not individuals, with their own feelings, but a team who will not be diverted from the path they have chosen.
She also mentions the word 'really' three times, which could be interpreted as a conscious, or subconscious, desire to convince the interviewer, and those watching, that she 'really' is telling the truth.
It would appear from this passage that she's telling us, in a displaced way, how she thinks 'they' should feel, not how 'she' herself really did feel. Why? Is it because she is nervous in her first interview or could it be because she doesn't know how someone who has had their daughter abducted really feels?
Ultimately, Kate's answer, despite being wrapped in curious passages where she feels compelled to mention the support they've received, is quite shocking.
The fact is, despite locals giving up work for a week to search the beach and streets for Madeleine, she has admitted that she never actually did any physical searching for her missing daughter.
Not for nothing is the generic advice in the UK when a loved-one (child or otherwise) goes missing under circumstances where a tragic outcome is possible, for loved-ones of the missing person NOT to search ...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 16, 2015, 05:46:04 PM
Continuing off topic to answer your accusation The journalists would have followed them This thread is about searching Why divert to make it another slagging off thread
I am well aware that this thread is about searching and not jogging for fun.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 16, 2015, 05:50:24 PM
The first interview with Jane Hill from the BBC - 25 May 2007
This interview is interesting as it is the first interview given by the McCanns after the disappearance of Madeleine. They had previously only given short, scripted statements.
Perhaps the most revealing question in the interview is this one:
Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."
Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back."
What is significant in Kate's answer here?
Four things: Kate's displacement from the event, her inability to express what 'she' actually felt, an apparent, almost desperate, desire to promote a 'united' front and a reluctance to commit an answer to the question.
It is significant that she says "the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult". Her use of the word 'are' instead of 'were' is very revealing. It's as though she's quoting something that she has been advised by a counsellor. 'The first 48 hours are the most difficult'. What she has done here is displaced herself from the scene and is reporting on it, not from it.
It is also revealing how she uses the word 'you' and, again, shows her displacement. She says: "after that you get strength from somewhere". Why is she using 'you' in this sentence? The interviewer has asked her for her personal feelings. Why doesn't she say 'I got strength...' or 'we got strength...' Again, she is placing herself outside the event, looking in.
She uses the word 'we' six times in this brief quote because it would appear she's struggling to answer it, without revealing that she has never actually searched for her missing daughter. Use of the word 'we' and also 'us', which is mentioned twice along with Gerry's name, suggests she's trying to hide under a 'united' front. This suggests she feels vulnerable and needs the support and leadership from Gerry to continue. The overall impression given is that they are not individuals, with their own feelings, but a team who will not be diverted from the path they have chosen.
She also mentions the word 'really' three times, which could be interpreted as a conscious, or subconscious, desire to convince the interviewer, and those watching, that she 'really' is telling the truth.
It would appear from this passage that she's telling us, in a displaced way, how she thinks 'they' should feel, not how 'she' herself really did feel. Why? Is it because she is nervous in her first interview or could it be because she doesn't know how someone who has had their daughter abducted really feels?
Ultimately, Kate's answer, despite being wrapped in curious passages where she feels compelled to mention the support they've received, is quite shocking.
The fact is, despite locals giving up work for a week to search the beach and streets for Madeleine, she has admitted that she never actually did any physical searching for her missing daughter.
who is responsible for authoring this piece of cod-forensic linguistic analysis?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 16, 2015, 05:58:00 PM
I don't think any reasonable person would have expected Kate to search when what they were effectively looking for was Maddie's body
It's what's called showing a united front davel, getting out there among the lesser folk and encouraging them. The point which seems to be lost on you is that this never happened. Near neighbour Robert Murat and his mom Jenny got out there, did something about the girls disappearance.
Question. Did the McCanns ever once approach the Murats to show their gratitude?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 16, 2015, 05:58:41 PM
Where does she say she had better things to do than search?
Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."
Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back."
seems she doesn't say what it was....but they were working really hard ...doing nothing...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 16, 2015, 06:09:24 PM
Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."
Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back."
seems she doesn't say what it was....but they were working really hard ...doing nothing...
So she doesn't say we have better things to do, thanks for confirming that you were wrong.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 16, 2015, 06:13:59 PM
Is there another set of parents anywhere, ever, who has done more to try and find their missing child? The simple answer is - no. For a start, they succeeded in making sure that their missing child was the most highly visible missing child that there has ever been. Secondly, they have not allowed the investigation into her disappearance to remain shelved and have done everything within their power to ensure that it has continued in one form or another ever since she disappeared. They have been working on this for nearly nine relentless years, and yet there are still people claiming they have done nothing. It's quite incredible that people could be so blind and so unfair to them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 06:20:29 PM
Is there another set of parents anywhere, ever, who has done more to try and find their missing child? The simple answer is - no. For a start, they succeeded in making sure that their missing child was the most highly visible missing child that there has ever been. Secondly, they have not allowed the investigation into her disappearance to remain shelved and have done everything within their power to ensure that it has continued in one form or another ever since she disappeared. They have been working on this for nearly nine relentless years, and yet there are still people claiming they have done nothing. It's quite incredible that people could be so blind and so unfair to them.
Don't make me laugh.
They did b....r all themselves, and have a stream of incompetents and crooks in the 'search', invariably using other peoples donated money.
As to finding Madeleine, they wanted a review of the case, and access to all files, which they had no right to, and on Brooks intervention with Cameron, it became eventually an investigation.
So where has all this searching led........
Nowhere, of course.
The question is why. &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 06:22:45 PM
It's what's called showing a united front davel, getting out there among the lesser folk and encouraging them. The point which seems to be lost on you is that this never happened. Near neighbour Robert Murat and his mom Jenny got out there, did something about the girls disappearance.
Question. Did the McCanns ever once approach the Murats to show their gratitude?
don't agree for the reasons already stated
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 16, 2015, 06:36:33 PM
By the time they were out jogging Madeleine was undoubtedly well out with the boundaries of Luz. Supported by the fact that no body had been found at the time ... confirmed by the fact that none has been found in the intervening period.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 16, 2015, 08:16:27 PM
By the time they were out jogging Madeleine was undoubtedly well out with the boundaries of Luz. Supported by the fact that no body had been found at the time ... confirmed by the fact that none has been found in the intervening period.
Uncountably out of Luz.
That is supposition and no more.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 16, 2015, 08:26:35 PM
Friends from the UK went out to Portugal to search. Jon Corner's wife/partner left her small children and flew out on Sunday 6th May. On the Monday morning she and Nicky Gill joined a group of civilians searching the fields. At 12 noon Kate McCann called them back to mind the twins while she and her husband spoke to the media.
Around 12h00 I received a telephone from Kate asking if Nicky and I could take care of the twins while they attended a session with the media asking for help and had just returned to the resort. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/M_THOMPSON.htm
A couple who were friends made their way to Portugal on Tuesday 8th May. They arranged their own accommodation and the husband joined in the searches during the following days. He kept in touch via texts, and the parents met up with him on Friday 11th for half an hour.
Kate asked me to pray at the Marina, which I did, a number of times during the week. I returned home on Sunday, 13th of May, 2007, leaving from Faro at 9:30. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PE-PA.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 08:33:04 PM
Both Kate and Gerry did search as Kate reported in her book....they searched when there was a possibility of finding a living child
they searched for one hour .........from the book
p. 83 Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents. We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona’s apartment .
so now looking for a living child......strange place to look then
"We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 09:58:31 PM
p. 83 Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents. We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona’s apartment .
so now looking for a living child......strange place to look then
"We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."
so you now accept what you said was untrue...thanks
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 16, 2015, 10:33:23 PM
When Jane Hill asked Kate about going out searching, why instead of babbling on about working very hard, why didn't she say instead,...... oh but they had, they went out at four the next morning at first light,,,,,.
Why wait until 4 years later to talk about jumping over walls and what not
now the question was from stephen,,,,,,, So why didn't they search ?
answer from davel,,,,,,,, Because they would have been searching for a dead child
you really do contradict yourself ...or IMO try to cause confinement
they didn't search in case they found maddie dead ......yet the hour they did search....is every where a dead child would be
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 10:38:19 PM
When Jane Hill asked Kate about going out searching, why instead of babbling on about working very hard, why didn't she say instead,...... oh but they had, they went out at four the next morning at first light,,,,,.
Why wait until 4 years later to talk about jumping over walls and what not
now the question was from stephen,,,,,,, So why didn't they search ?
answer from davel,,,,,,,, Because they would have been searching for a dead child
you really do contradict yourself ...or IMO try to cause confinement
they didn't search in case they found maddie dead ......yet the hour they did search....is every where a dead child would be
I don't contradict myself...you just think I do...plus you can't see how statments are made in context...and you don't understand why the mccanns are not suspects... I do
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 10:41:17 PM
When Jane Hill asked Kate about going out searching, why instead of babbling on about working very hard, why didn't she say instead,...... oh but they had, they went out at four the next morning at first light,,,,,.
Why wait until 4 years later to talk about jumping over walls and what not
now the question was from stephen,,,,,,, So why didn't they search ?
answer from davel,,,,,,,, Because they would have been searching for a dead child
you really do contradict yourself ...or IMO try to cause confinement
they didn't search in case they found maddie dead ......yet the hour they did search....is every where a dead child would be
the fact that they looked in one dumpster does not mean they looked everywhere a dead child might be
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 16, 2015, 11:02:10 PM
I don't contradict myself...you just think I do...plus you can't see how statments are made in context...and you don't understand why the mccanns are not suspects... I do
they said this in june 2007
2:01AM BST 07 Jun 2007
The parents of Madeleine McCann were forced to defend themselves publicly yesterday against accusations that they were involved in their daughter's abduction.
Kate and Gerry McCann had flown to Berlin to raise awareness of Madeleine's kidnap, almost five weeks after she was taken from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.
But they were shocked at a press conference when a German radio reporter suggested that the "finger of suspicion" was pointing at them.
Sabine Mueller, had asked: "How do you feel about the fact that more and more people seem to be pointing the finger at you, saying the way you behave is not the way people would normally behave when their child is abducted and they seem to imply that you might have something to do with it?"
Mrs McCann replied: "To be honest I don't actually think that is the case. I think there is a very small minority of people that are criticising us.
"The facts are we were dining very close to the children and we were checking on them very, very regularly.
"You know we are very responsible parents and we love our children so much. I think it is very few people that are actually criticising us."
Gerry McCann added: "I have never heard before that anyone considers us suspects in this. The Portuguese police certainly don't.
anyway its about the searching...........one hour ...searching for a dead ...or ...alive child ....you think that is OK.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 16, 2015, 11:05:48 PM
So what do sceptics infer from this perceived lack of searching on the part of the MCCanns?
That they weren't that bothered about finding their missing child?
That they knew there was no point looking and couldn't even be arsed to put on a performance?
Or what?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2015, 11:08:18 PM
So having posted all afternoon that they didn't search you now realise you were wrong...you have no idea how long they searched for but it doesn't really matter...the sport is bashing the mccanns and it's the taking part that's important...pathetic
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 17, 2015, 12:16:04 AM
In many cases the strong psychological tendency to irrationally direct the search outward away from the centre, is strengthened further and irretrievably by a tentative sighting of the missing person moving away from the premises. This is not the only case where this has happened. There are many.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 17, 2015, 12:50:49 AM
Who searched 5A garden that night? There is a vague statement that 2 group members might have had a quick look there. And one definite statement by a tourist saying he started to search there. And that's it - unless anyone has a GNR or PJ statement saying they searched the garden that night? BTW for a guide to how very dark the garden was late at night see the NPIA/PJ video two months later.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 17, 2015, 07:51:44 AM
It's what's called showing a united front davel, getting out there among the lesser folk and encouraging them. The point which seems to be lost on you is that this never happened. Near neighbour Robert Murat and his mom Jenny got out there, did something about the girls disappearance.
Question. Did the McCanns ever once approach the Murats to show their gratitude?
So do you think they should have refused to spend the day at the police station on the 4th and instead used that time to go out searching and 'encouraging' people?
Do you think they would have been wise to go out searching during the following days when scores of reporters/photographers were lying in wait for them?
Why do you think they were wrong to follow police advice to stay home - that being the standard advice given by the experts?
No-one knows whether the McCanns and the Murats have ever been in contact with oneanother - so your last question is unanswerable.
A reply would be appreciated.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 17, 2015, 08:51:12 AM
Seemingly not given they went on holiday as a family of five and came back a foursome.
But seriously, they knew bloody well that the journalists would be out snapping them which rather says it all. If they were really interested in running they could have got a lift to one of the numerous out of the way coastal paths which line the Portuguese coast and did their jogging there. But not Kate and Gerry, another me moment for the cameras!
So in answer to the question as to what actual searching was there, not a lot!!
Never heard of Zoom Lens Angelo? They are standard equipment for photographers whose livelihood depends on taking and selling piccies to the media - and sometimes from very great distances away from their 'targets'. The McCanns may not even have been aware at times that their photo was being taken.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 08:56:54 AM
The parents of Madeleine McCann were forced to defend themselves publicly yesterday against accusations that they were involved in their daughter's abduction.
Kate and Gerry McCann had flown to Berlin to raise awareness of Madeleine's kidnap, almost five weeks after she was taken from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.
But they were shocked at a press conference when a German radio reporter suggested that the "finger of suspicion" was pointing at them.
Sabine Mueller, had asked: "How do you feel about the fact that more and more people seem to be pointing the finger at you, saying the way you behave is not the way people would normally behave when their child is abducted and they seem to imply that you might have something to do with it?"
Mrs McCann replied: "To be honest I don't actually think that is the case. I think there is a very small minority of people that are criticising us.
"The facts are we were dining very close to the children and we were checking on them very, very regularly.
"You know we are very responsible parents and we love our children so much. I think it is very few people that are actually criticising us."
Gerry McCann added: "I have never heard before that anyone considers us suspects in this. The Portuguese police certainly don't.
anyway its about the searching...........one hour ...searching for a dead ...or ...alive child ....you think that is OK.
I think that is OK do you know that parents of another child who was abducted and murdered also searched for just over an hour and that was OK too.
They searched where Madeleine had been that week, THEN just as ALL parents of missing children they WAITED FOR THE POLICE.
The following morning they searched again for an hour, the police were due back so they again waited for the police to arrive then went to the station.
For some reason you are trying to make out that the McCann's have behaved differently to other parents whose children have gone missing, they didn't.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 17, 2015, 09:01:35 AM
So having posted all afternoon that they didn't search you now realise you were wrong...you have no idea how long they searched for but it doesn't really matter...the sport is bashing the mccanns and it's the taking part that's important...pathetic
No, what was truly pathetic, was the mccanns lack of searching for their 'beloved' daughter.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 09:01:46 AM
So what do sceptics infer from this perceived lack of searching on the part of the MCCanns?
That they weren't that bothered about finding their missing child?
That they knew there was no point looking and couldn't even be arsed to put on a performance?
Or what?
The point is Alfred, they have no argument at all the McCann's did what all parents of a missing child do they searched then waited for the police, the police then take over.
All this business of they should have kept searching is ridiculous, it was a foreign country for one, they searched where Madeleine was known to have been that week, there were hundreds of other people searching, who wants the parents of a missing child, running around like headless chickens screaming and crying trying to find their child who could be dead?
The police organise searches which they did, which is the normal procedure.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 09:02:57 AM
I think that is OK do you know that parents of another child who was abducted and murdered also searched for just over an hour and that was OK too.
They searched where Madeleine had been that week, THEN just as ALL parents of missing children they WAITED FOR THE POLICE.
The following morning they searched again for an hour, the police were due back so they again waited for the police to arrive then went to the station.
For some reason you are trying to make out that the McCann's have behaved differently to other parents whose children have gone missing, they didn't.
They searched where Madeleine had been that week,
p. 83 Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 09:25:20 AM
The mccanns had time for irrelevant foreign trips, meeting 'celebrities', jogging, setting up a fund, PR, etc.
Did the Paynes do all that ?
I have read Sara Payne's book and she said in there how long they searched for, there was also a programme on not long ago about Sarah and Sara was on that too.
The irrelevant foreign trips were to raise awareness that Madeleine was missing, the McCann's believed Madeleine to have been abducted, they went to the countries where she could have been taken.
Jogging, they had a very good 'expert' arrive in Portugal who would have helped them deal with the anxiety and trauma caused through having a missing child, jogging was something they could do to ease the anxiety, just has some people go for walks etc. maybe it's something you don't understand Stephen.
The fund was set up as there were so many people wanting to help them, they had so much money pouring in they had to set something up into which they could safely put the money, what else could they do with it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 17, 2015, 09:26:07 AM
No, what was truly pathetic, was the mccanns lack of searching for their 'believed' daughter.
I presume you also think April Jones parents and Sandy Davidson's mother are just as 'truly pathetic' - as they didn't join in the searching either.
In fact April's father said he regularly walked up a nearby hill and sat there watching other people searching for his daughter in the valley below. How disgraceful was that? Why wasn't he down there helping them - especially as he would know the area well? Her mother didn't search either - she was so badly affected that she could hardly bring herself to leave the house, so she stayed in while millions of tax payers £s were being spent on the search which she chose not to take part in. Tut tut - how selfish was that -especially as it was her fault her daughter was allowed outside unsupervised.
Sandy Davidson's mother couldn't bring herself to search because she was frightened of what she might find. Dear me what sort of mother allows her own feelings to prevent her looking for her own child?
I don't see how anyone who criticises the McCanns re searching - can do so without also agreeing with the above. - as not to agree would make them huge hypocrites IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 09:27:01 AM
p. 83 Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week
Yes, and? a paedophile could have snatched her, it is said that if a paedophile snatches a child they usually dump the child within a couple of hours.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 09:33:05 AM
Why didn't Amaral when informed that Madeleine hadn't been found, knowing the window was open in her bedroom, immediately have road blocks, police at air ports, ferries. He's the one who didn't bother, do the police in Portugal just forget a child is missing after the initial search?
People criticise the McCann's yet they were left alone after the Police left, see you tomorrow they said. How about getting on to the person in charge, saying, we haven't found the child, the window was open in her bedroom the parents think she could have been abducted, shall we put road blocks out, man the airports etc.? No, lets go to bed and think about things tomorrow.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 17, 2015, 09:37:47 AM
I have read Sara Payne's book and she said in there how long they searched for, there was also a programme on not long ago about Sarah and Sara was on that too.
The irrelevant foreign trips were to raise awareness that Madeleine was missing, the McCann's believed Madeleine to have been abducted, they went to the countries where she could have been taken.
Jogging, they had a very good 'expert' arrive in Portugal who would have helped them deal with the anxiety and trauma caused through having a missing child, jogging was something they could do to ease the anxiety, just has some people go for walks etc. maybe it's something you don't understand Stephen.
The fund was set up as there were so many people wanting to help them, they had so much money pouring in they had to set something up into which they could safely put the money, what else could they do with it?
You're making pathetic excuses.
Why the need for foreign trips and meeting 'celebrities' ?
The case was already worldwide news, the trips were pandering to the mccanns egos.
Obviously, for you jogging, etc., is far more important than searching.
As to the fund, that was set up for the long term. 8)-)))
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 17, 2015, 09:40:05 AM
I presume you also think April Jones parents and Sandy Davidson's mother are just as 'truly pathetic' - as they didn't join in the searching either.
In fact April's father said he regularly walked up a nearby hill and sat there watching other people searching for his daughter in the valley below. How disgraceful was that? Why wasn't he down there helping them - especially as he would know the area well? Her mother didn't search either - she was so badly affected that she could hardly bring herself to leave the house, so she stayed in while millions of tax payers £s were being spent on the search which she chose not to take part in. Tut tut - how selfish was that -especially as it was her fault her daughter was allowed outside unsupervised.
Sandy Davidson's mother couldn't bring herself to search because she was frightened of what she might find. Dear me what sort of mother allows her own feelings to prevent her looking for her own child?
I don't see how anyone who criticises the McCanns re searching - can do so without also agreeing with the above. - as not to agree would make them huge hypocrites IMO.
IMO.
That is your calling card.
So are you saying the mccanns didn't want to search, because they knew Madeleine was dead ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 17, 2015, 09:42:39 AM
Why didn't Amaral when informed that Madeleine hadn't been found, knowing the window was open in her bedroom, immediately have road blocks, police at air ports, ferries. He's the one who didn't bother, do the police in Portugal just forget a child is missing after the initial search?
People criticise the McCann's yet they were left alone after the Police left, see you tomorrow they said. How about getting on to the person in charge, saying, we haven't found the child, the window was open in her bedroom the parents think she could have been abducted, shall we put road blocks out, man the airports etc.? No, lets go to bed and think about things tomorrow.
We know, according to kate mccann the 'window was open'.
Not from an independent source before 10 pm.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 17, 2015, 09:54:02 AM
i wouldn't even go there as to compare k mcc ...to Sara Payne as mothers.....
Why not - there is no evidence at all from the people who knew the McCanns that they were anything other than normal loving parents - and there are plenty of photographs and videos evidence to show that Madeleine had a lovely life - in fact some would say a privileged life compared to some chidren.
None of the witnesses who knew the family had a bad word to say about them as parents - and no-one has ever come out of the woodwork to say otherwise. And believe you me - if the press could have found someone to do that - it would have been splashed all over their front pages.
None of what happened in PdL can alter any of that IMO.
You might as well claim that Sara Paynes family were delinquent as they left their children on their own for hours without a thought for any dangers they were placing them - and then claim that by doing that - it cancelled out any idea that they were normal loving parents before that fateful day.
Utter nonsense IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 10:04:30 AM
Why the need for foreign trips and meeting 'celebrities' ?
The case was already worldwide news, the trips were pandering to the mccanns egos.
Obviously, for you jogging, etc., is far more important than searching.
As to the fund, that was set up for the long term. 8)-)))
They went to the countries where they thought Madeleine may have been taken, you are forgetting they had help with decisions on what they could be doing to keep people aware that Madeleine was missing. They took posters that could be erected in the different countries. Madeleine may well have been worldwide news, but they went to give out posters so that the people in these countries were aware that Madeleine could be in their country. If you think the trips were pandering to the McCann's egos then that is your view, others saw parents who desperately wanted to find their daughter.
I will ignore your childish remark that jogging was more important than searching, as it is a remark that many make to fan the flames that the McCann's are nasty evil parents who don't love their children.
The fund was set up for all the money given to them by well wishers, if Madeleine was found then no doubt they would have given the money to charity.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 10:06:07 AM
They went to the countries where they thought Madeleine may have been taken, you are forgetting they had help with decisions on what they could be doing to keep people aware that Madeleine was missing. They took posters that could be erected in the different countries. Madeleine may well have been worldwide news, but they went to give out posters so that the people in these countries were aware that Madeleine could be in their country. If you think the trips were pandering to the McCann's egos then that is your view, others saw parents who desperately wanted to find their daughter.
I will ignore your childish remark that jogging was more important than searching, as it is a remark that many make to fan the flames that the McCann's are nasty evil parents who don't love their children.
The fund was set up for all the money given to them by well wishers, if Madeleine was found then no doubt they would have given the money to charity.
Do you not comprehend.
it was a worldwide story.
Going abroad had zero impact on finding Madeleine.
How did going to the White House for example help in the 'search' ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
kate mccann saying the window was open, does not make it true.
Madeleine was extensively searched for over a period of weeks, whereas the mccanns 'searching' terminated the following morning.
No evidence was found to back up or indicate abduction. The PJ were advised to investigate the mccanns.
The police should have acknowledged that the parents said the window was open, whether they believed them or not, action should have been taken straight away in case she had been abducted as well as doing a search of the surrounding area.
Why do you keep saying the McCann's search terminated the following morning? The police took over, they went to the station, what don't you understand?
The police were advised to investigate the McCann's after Amaral completely misunderstood the DNA results and fitted his theory against them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 17, 2015, 10:33:04 AM
The police should have acknowledged that the parents said the window was open, whether they believed them or not, action should have been taken straight away in case she had been abducted as well as doing a search of the surrounding area.
Why do you keep saying the McCann's search terminated the following morning? The police took over, they went to the station, what don't you understand?
The police were advised to investigate the McCann's after Amaral completely misunderstood the DNA results and fitted his theory against them.
Your lack of logic is startling.
Madeleine was searched for extensively by local people, holidaymakers, ex-pats and the police. This became an international search.
The PJ focused on the parents, not because of forensics, it was because they could find no evidence of abduction, and all such cases of missing children, say in the UK, would have included investigation of the parents.
As to the mccanns, NOTHING prevented them from searching.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 10:44:19 AM
Going abroad had zero impact on finding Madeleine.
How did going to the White House for example help in the 'search' ?
A paragraph from Kate's book, that you probably haven't read -
We had decided it would further our cause to visit one or two key countries ourselves and appeal personally to their people for help, seeking assistance and advice from politicians and children's charities. We wanted to reach some of the hundreds of potential witnesses from elsewhere on the continent who had been on holiday in the Algarve around the time of Madeleine's disappearance. Perhaps even more importantly, it was quite possible that Madeleine was in another country now. Had anyone noticed a little girl who seemed out of place, or somebody behaving suspiciously?
You see Stephen, they were thinking more intensely about finding Madeleine, than just relying on the media.
The visit to America was to discuss the Amber alert.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 10:47:28 AM
Madeleine was searched for extensively by local people, holidaymakers, ex-pats and the police. This became an international search.
The PJ focused on the parents, not because of forensics, it was because they could find no evidence of abduction, and all such cases of missing children, say in the UK, would have included investigation of the parents.
As to the mccanns, NOTHING prevented them from searching.
Your blindness is startling.
Amaral only questioned the McCann's AFTER the dogs went in. He then concocted a theory which would match what the dogs found. He said there was 100% DNA of Madeleine found in 5a which was rubbish.
They DID search, for gods sake what is wrong with you?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 17, 2015, 10:52:27 AM
Never heard of Zoom Lens Angelo? They are standard equipment for photographers whose livelihood depends on taking and selling piccies to the media - and sometimes from very great distances away from their 'targets'. The McCanns may not even have been aware at times that their photo was being taken.
Some people refer to the jogging as a coping mechanism but coping from what? shame?? guilt??
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 17, 2015, 10:54:23 AM
So having posted all afternoon that they didn't search you now realise you were wrong...you have no idea how long they searched for but it doesn't really matter...the sport is bashing the mccanns and it's the taking part that's important...pathetic
I have spent longer looking for a lost cat than they have apparently spent out there in the Algarve searching for a lost child. hmm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 17, 2015, 11:00:57 AM
Amaral only questioned the McCann's AFTER the dogs went in. He then concocted a theory which would match what the dogs found. He said there was 100% DNA of Madeleine found in 5a which was rubbish.
They DID search, for gods sake what is wrong with you?
There was no evidence of abduction.
The parents in any case such as this would be investigated.
Get real Lace.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 11:01:19 AM
so you think also ...they loved her enough to loose her .....they failed to protect her .....left her in an unlocked room
one way street in UK ...you have to support the mccs .....so i wouldn't think if i was you they have as much support as you think....
no one saw them searching for that hour ..............so who knows that they did ...[oh yes k remembers it in her book]
IMO .....they didn't search ....because they knew they would not find her
Are YOU for real, you think they WANTED to lose her do you?
Yes they left her they shouldn't have, they made a massive wrong decision, but that does not mean they did not love her.
There was no INTENT as the final statement said, they did not go out to cause Madeleine danger, they did not want Madeleine to come to harm. Is that clear enough for you?
Whether or not anyone saw them searching in that hour doesn't mean they didn't they said they did the friends looked after the twins so they could search, so ask the friends, I don't see why the friends would lie.
Your last sentence is really silly, they DID search.
If they had wanted to put on a big show to make out they were searching for a child they knew was dead then they would have, instead they did what all normal parents do, they searched the area where they thought Madeleine would have gone, they waited for the police. They went out again in the early morning, then waited for the police, after all it was the police who could do a proper search for Madeleine it was important that the information was given to the police.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 17, 2015, 11:01:58 AM
Why not - there is no evidence at all from the people who knew the McCanns that they were anything other than normal loving parents - and there are plenty of photographs and videos evidence to show that Madeleine had a lovely life - in fact some would say a privileged life compared to some chidren.
None of the witnesses who knew the family had a bad word to say about them as parents - and no-one has ever come out of the woodwork to say otherwise. And believe you me - if the press could have found someone to do that - it would have been splashed all over their front pages.
None of what happened in PdL can alter any of that IMO.
You might as well claim that Sara Paynes family were delinquent as they left their children on their own for hours without a thought for any dangers they were placing them - and then claim that by doing that - it cancelled out any idea that they were normal loving parents before that fateful day.
Utter nonsense IMO.
Utter nonsense IMO.
referring to your post ...i can only agree
no comparasing ....the paynes children were not 2 3 year old
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 11:02:02 AM
I think that is OK do you know that parents of another child who was abducted and murdered also searched for just over an hour and that was OK too.
They searched where Madeleine had been that week, THEN just as ALL parents of missing children they WAITED FOR THE POLICE.
The following morning they searched again for an hour, the police were due back so they again waited for the police to arrive then went to the station.
For some reason you are trying to make out that the McCann's have behaved differently to other parents whose children have gone missing, they didn't.
And then they criticised the police for doing their job eventually failing to cooperate fully with the enquiry even though said police were following normal procedures.
So behaved differently is a no brainer.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 17, 2015, 11:09:24 AM
A paragraph from Kate's book, that you probably haven't read -
We had decided it would further our cause to visit one or two key countries ourselves and appeal personally to their people for help, seeking assistance and advice from politicians and children's charities. We wanted to reach some of the hundreds of potential witnesses from elsewhere on the continent who had been on holiday in the Algarve around the time of Madeleine's disappearance. Perhaps even more importantly, it was quite possible that Madeleine was in another country now. Had anyone noticed a little girl who seemed out of place, or somebody behaving suspiciously?
You see Stephen, they were thinking more intensely about finding Madeleine, than just relying on the media.
The visit to America was to discuss the Amber alert.
That looks good but equally it could be a wild goose chase if they are involved. Take the attention away from them about leaving their young kids in an unsecured apartment.
Gerry says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 17, 2015, 11:11:22 AM
The point is Alfred, they have no argument at all the McCann's did what all parents of a missing child do they searched then waited for the police, the police then take over.
All this business of they should have kept searching is ridiculous, it was a foreign country for one, they searched where Madeleine was known to have been that week, there were hundreds of other people searching, who wants the parents of a missing child, running around like headless chickens screaming and crying trying to find their child who could be dead?
The police organise searches which they did, which is the normal procedure.
When SY eventually give up as I wholly expect them to do it will be interesting to see what sort of private search is planned using resources set aside from the Fund. Are we in for a repeat of the Metodo 3 and Oakley follies?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 17, 2015, 11:16:17 AM
That looks good but equally it could be a wild goose chase if they are involved. Take the attention away from them about leaving their young kids in an unsecured apartment.
Gerry says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”
The advice given by the experts is to do exactly that i.e. market them by advertising them so that as many people as possible will know about them. It was with this in mind that in the USA they used milk cartons to advertise their missing children's faces - knowing that cartons of milk would reach millions of people every day. IIRC it was discontinued because some people didn't want to think about missing chidren over their breakfast.
(From memory).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 17, 2015, 11:18:45 AM
Why didn't Amaral when informed that Madeleine hadn't been found, knowing the window was open in her bedroom, immediately have road blocks, police at air ports, ferries. He's the one who didn't bother, do the police in Portugal just forget a child is missing after the initial search?
People criticise the McCann's yet they were left alone after the Police left, see you tomorrow they said. How about getting on to the person in charge, saying, we haven't found the child, the window was open in her bedroom the parents think she could have been abducted, shall we put road blocks out, man the airports etc.? No, lets go to bed and think about things tomorrow.
Unless I've missed it, we don't know when Amaral knew the window was open.
By the time the PJ arrived at 5A, a car could have been in Spain or in Lisbon. A boat could have set sail from Lagos, Portimão, or several other Algarve ports.
If this was a planned abduction, the abductor was long gone.
If it was a botched robbery plus abduction, by the time the PJ arrived, it was too late to seal Luz. In fact by the time the first phone call was made to the GNR it was too late to seal Luz. Should you wish to contend this, I'll be happy to demonstrate why it is nigh-well impossible to seal Luz with less than hundreds of officers.
To criticise the PJ on this, you need to come up with a UK equivalent where it has happened, preferably but not necessarily around 2007.
The nearest I am aware of was the fairly recent case where a young child was reported missing from his home in Edinburgh. The UK police sealed off nothing. And I don't think the presence or absence of an open window comes into it.
Kate says in her book she went out searching at first light. I have never been interested in this aspect, but 4am does not strike me as the right time for first light.
She says no-one else was searching. Again without digging into this, I thought a number of GNR officers were.
While the MW search was called off around 4pm, it is a tad rich to say the staff etc had searched until then, whilst the T9 did very little, and then moan about the lack of bodies at first light. The McCanns went to bed whilst GNR and MW searched.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 11:24:47 AM
The parents in any case such as this would be investigated.
Get real Lace.
What evidence do you want a signed photograph of the abductor? Thank god you are not a detective.
I'm not saying the parents wouldn't be investigated, but they should have been investigated Amaral said he suspected the McCann's from the beginning, yet he investigated the sightings, he didn't suggest the dogs came in either. It was only when the dogs came in he decided to suspect the McCann's and made his theory fit.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 17, 2015, 11:25:17 AM
Are YOU for real, you think they WANTED to lose her do you?
Yes they left her they shouldn't have, they made a massive wrong decision, but that does not mean they did not love her.
There was no INTENT as the final statement said, they did not go out to cause Madeleine danger, they did not want Madeleine to come to harm. Is that clear enough for you?
Whether or not anyone saw them searching in that hour doesn't mean they didn't they said they did the friends looked after the twins so they could search, so ask the friends, I don't see why the friends would lie.
Your last sentence is really silly, they DID search.
If they had wanted to put on a big show to make out they were searching for a child they knew was dead then they would have, instead they did what all normal parents do, they searched the area where they thought Madeleine would have gone, they waited for the police. They went out again in the early morning, then waited for the police, after all it was the police who could do a proper search for Madeleine it was important that the information was given to the police.
after all it was the police who could do a proper search for Madeleine it was important that the information was given to the police
yes ....so what happened here then ,,,,
Are you aware of the fact that by not answering these questions you may compromise the investigation, which is trying to find out what happened to your daughter? She said “yes, if the investigation thinks so.”
why should they be believed ....when there is never anything nothing to back them up,,,,,,
they said ....maddie was abducted .....they said they serched.....
personally if they called me by name..... i would go check my birth certificate
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 17, 2015, 11:29:27 AM
Unless I've missed it, we don't know when Amaral knew the window was open.
By the time the PJ arrived at 5A, a car could have been in Spain or in Lisbon. A boat could have set sail from Lagos, Portimão, or several other Algarve ports.
If this was a planned abduction, the abductor was long gone.
If it was a botched robbery plus abduction, by the time the PJ arrived, it was too late to seal Luz. In fact by the time the first phone call was made to the GNR it was too late to seal Luz. Should you wish to contend this, I'll be happy to demonstrate why it is nigh-well impossible to seal Luz with less than hundreds of officers.
To criticise the PJ on this, you need to come up with a UK equivalent where it has happened, preferably but not necessarily around 2007.
The nearest I am aware of was the fairly recent case where a young child was reported missing from his home in Edinburgh. The UK police sealed off nothing. And I don't think the presence or absence of an open window comes into it.
Kate says in her book she went out searching at first light. I have never been interested in this aspect, but 4am does not strike me as the right time for first light.
She says no-one else was searching. Again without digging into this, I thought a number of GNR officers were.
While the MW search was called off around 4pm, it is a tad rich to say the staff etc had searched until then, whilst the T9 did very little, and then moan about the lack of bodies at first light. The McCanns went to bed whilst GNR and MW searched.
The thing is no one knew where Madeleine was, she could have been anywhere, being kept somewhere before taken abroad, who knows. To say she could have been whisked away straight away is only a guess, the road blocks etc. should have been set up as a matter or precaution.
I don't think they got up to search at 4 in the morning, Kate said at dawn. They only slept for an hour, Kate said she didn't sleep at all, but Gerry insisted they rested.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 11:35:07 AM
...or the Needhams for that matter. They have searched extensively on the island where Ben disappeared with little help from anyone.
Kerry searched where she thought Ben would have strayed, when they did a reconstruction with Ben's sisters little girl, they were amazed how much further she toddled, if they had known that they would have searched further.
You are talking about Kerry investigating sightings when you say she searched the island, she didn't search the island when Ben first disappeared, she searched where he may have wandered. I've read her book.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 17, 2015, 11:38:25 AM
No they were not - but that didn't stop one of them being adbucted did it?
no it didn't ......but there were clues ...evidence ....Sarah was in the wrong place at the wrong time .....
not trapped .abandoned..and left for the taking ......
it astounds me the amount of defence that is given for the mccs and derailing ....from a single comment of not believing them ....or believe they searched ....as to them there was no point
thread title.....Re: So what actual searching was there?,,,,by the mccs none ...end of
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 11:39:27 AM
after all it was the police who could do a proper search for Madeleine it was important that the information was given to the police
yes ....so what happened here then ,,,,
Are you aware of the fact that by not answering these questions you may compromise the investigation, which is trying to find out what happened to your daughter? She said “yes, if the investigation thinks so.”
why should they be believed ....when there is never anything nothing to back them up,,,,,,
they said ....maddie was abducted .....they said they serched.....
personally if they called me by name..... i would go check my birth certificate
What are you talking about?
You are talking about questions the police asked when they were accusing Kate of having something to do with Madeleine's disappearance. Of course she didn't answer the questions, her lawyer advised her not to, they were trying to twist what she said in order to accuse her of something. The lawyer knew what they were going to do and warned Kate before hand.
What I said was the McCann's went to the station on the 4th of May, in order for the police to get statements to what had happened so that they had a clear picture of the time up to when Madeleine went missing, it has nothing at all to do with the questions Kate refused to answer.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 17, 2015, 11:40:31 AM
What evidence do you want a signed photograph of the abductor? Thank god you are not a detective.
I'm not saying the parents wouldn't be investigated, but they should have been investigated Amaral said he suspected the McCann's from the beginning, yet he investigated the sightings, he didn't suggest the dogs came in either. It was only when the dogs came in he decided to suspect the McCann's and made his theory fit.
They used British dogs that changed the case. He was removed before bringing the eye witnesses back to Portugal. That is all evidence that needs to be proved or not. Both the Portuguese and British detectives have been working on this together since the start.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 11:41:57 AM
no it didn't ......but there were clues ...evidence ....Sarah was in the wrong place at the wrong time .....
not trapped .abandoned..and left for the taking ......
it astounds me the amount of defence that is given for the mccs and derailing ....from a single comment of not believing them ....or believe they searched ....as to them there was no point
thread title.....Re: So what actual searching was there?,,,,by the mccs none ...end of
Yes, thank god Sarah's brother saw that white van or there wouldn't have been any evidence and who knows what the Payne's may have been accused of by people who knew nothing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 17, 2015, 11:57:00 AM
The thing is no one knew where Madeleine was, she could have been anywhere, being kept somewhere before taken abroad, who knows. To say she could have been whisked away straight away is only a guess, the road blocks etc. should have been set up as a matter or precaution.
I don't think they got up to search at 4 in the morning, Kate said at dawn. They only slept for an hour, Kate said she didn't sleep at all, but Gerry insisted they rested.
Road blocks where? Luz has main roads in/out and many minor ones. Trying to road block Luz requires a lot of cars and officers.
Wider road blocks? Where? Just the Algarve or across every main road in Portugal?
Airports. Why? Did the abductor come with a fake passport ready set up to look like Madeleine? That level of abductor definitely would have been in Spain, Lisbon, or out by boat, not dumb enough to try to get a child through an airport on a dodgy passport or worse, without one.
Count the number of ports just on the Algarve. Any idea how many officers would be required?
To the ferries, or is it just ferry? Still the passport problem.
Searched where Madeleine had gone? Don't think so. The Tapas area was not open at that time. If they went to the Millennium (hmm at first light??, and the Millennium was open, no one from there remarked that the McCanns had popped in and searched. Now we KNOW that the 24hr OC reception was open, and we KNOW that Madeleine's Club was in there, but the receptionist does not say the McCanns popped in to search.
Other than that, it boils down to a trip to the beach, and that is not mentioned in Kate's book.
As to the logic of the search, there is none. Why go to places Madeleine had visited and look for a dead child (dumpster, undergrowth etc.)? Was the idea that the abductor had seen her there, had decided to kill her, and was dumb enough to implicate himself by leaving the corpse near to where he had seen her?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 12:25:21 PM
Road blocks where? Luz has main roads in/out and many minor ones. Trying to road block Luz requires a lot of cars and officers.
Wider road blocks? Where? Just the Algarve or across every main road in Portugal?
Airports. Why? Did the abductor come with a fake passport ready set up to look like Madeleine? That level of abductor definitely would have been in Spain, Lisbon, or out by boat, not dumb enough to try to get a child through an airport on a dodgy passport or worse, without one.
Count the number of ports just on the Algarve. Any idea how many officers would be required?
To the ferries, or is it just ferry? Still the passport problem.
Searched where Madeleine had gone? Don't think so. The Tapas area was not open at that time. If they went to the Millennium (hmm at first light??, and the Millennium was open, no one from there remarked that the McCanns had popped in and searched. Now we KNOW that the 24hr OC reception was open, and we KNOW that Madeleine's Club was in there, but the receptionist does not say the McCanns popped in to search.
Other than that, it boils down to a trip to the beach, and that is not mentioned in Kate's book.
As to the logic of the search, there is none. Why go to places Madeleine had visited and look for a dead child (dumpster, undergrowth etc.)? Was the idea that the abductor had seen her there, had decided to kill her, and was dumb enough to implicate himself by leaving the corpse near to where he had seen her?
Strange how they managed to do road blocks etc. hours after the event though isn't it? A child can get through an air port using a pass port with a baby photo on it, who can say if the baby photo is Madeleine or not. Why did they follow up sightings of people saying the saw her on a plane if they didn't think she could have been smuggled through?
Kate says in her book that she asked for Gerry and one of the friends to go and search the beach again.
The McCann's were told that if a Paedophile had snatched Madeleine, they usually dump their victim after about an hour or so, so yes she could have been dumped near to where she was abducted.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 17, 2015, 01:02:33 PM
I have read Sara Payne's book and she said in there how long they searched for, there was also a programme on not long ago about Sarah and Sara was on that too.
The irrelevant foreign trips were to raise awareness that Madeleine was missing, the McCann's believed Madeleine to have been abducted, they went to the countries where she could have been taken.
Jogging, they had a very good 'expert' arrive in Portugal who would have helped them deal with the anxiety and trauma caused through having a missing child, jogging was something they could do to ease the anxiety, just has some people go for walks etc. maybe it's something you don't understand Stephen.
The fund was set up as there were so many people wanting to help them, they had so much money pouring in they had to set something up into which they could safely put the money, what else could they do with it?
It is more than likely she wasn't taken anywhere and remains in Portugal which was where the search should have been expanded instead of wild goose chases all over the world. One could be forgiven for thinking that all those attempts to shift the search away from the Algarve and Portugal were part of a strategy with sinister undertones.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 17, 2015, 01:06:25 PM
I presume you also think April Jones parents and Sandy Davidson's mother are just as 'truly pathetic' - as they didn't join in the searching either.
In fact April's father said he regularly walked up a nearby hill and sat there watching other people searching for his daughter in the valley below. How disgraceful was that? Why wasn't he down there helping them - especially as he would know the area well? Her mother didn't search either - she was so badly affected that she could hardly bring herself to leave the house, so she stayed in while millions of tax payers £s were being spent on the search which she chose not to take part in. Tut tut - how selfish was that -especially as it was her fault her daughter was allowed outside unsupervised.
Sandy Davidson's mother couldn't bring herself to search because she was frightened of what she might find. Dear me what sort of mother allows her own feelings to prevent her looking for her own child?
I don't see how anyone who criticises the McCanns re searching - can do so without also agreeing with the above. - as not to agree would make them huge hypocrites IMO.
Regardless of excuses, the occasions on which the McCanns have searched on the ground in Portugal could be recorded on the back of a postage stamp.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 17, 2015, 01:14:21 PM
When they got to the beach Gerry broke down according to DP then they went back to the apartment. If it was a paedo then he didn't just dump a body or it would have been found. If there was a body it leads to concealment.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 17, 2015, 01:14:48 PM
Why didn't Amaral when informed that Madeleine hadn't been found, knowing the window was open in her bedroom, immediately have road blocks, police at air ports, ferries. He's the one who didn't bother, do the police in Portugal just forget a child is missing after the initial search?
People criticise the McCann's yet they were left alone after the Police left, see you tomorrow they said. How about getting on to the person in charge, saying, we haven't found the child, the window was open in her bedroom the parents think she could have been abducted, shall we put road blocks out, man the airports etc.? No, lets go to bed and think about things tomorrow.
You really don't have a clue Lace? Children disappear every day the vast majority of whom turn up safe and well. If the police in any country did what you suggest every time a kid decides to go AWOL then that country would soon come to a standstill. The Portuguese police did everything by the book which by the way included questioning the parents. Nothing unusual about that but surprisingly the parents reacted badly on this occasion.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee are no doubt unimpressed!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on November 17, 2015, 01:30:24 PM
Strange how they managed to do road blocks etc. hours after the event though isn't it? A child can get through an air port using a pass port with a baby photo on it, who can say if the baby photo is Madeleine or not. Why did they follow up sightings of people saying the saw her on a plane if they didn't think she could have been smuggled through?
Kate says in her book that she asked for Gerry and one of the friends to go and search the beach again.
The McCann's were told that if a Paedophile had snatched Madeleine, they usually dump their victim after about an hour or so, so yes she could have been dumped near to where she was abducted.
Nothing strange about it Lace, you cannot close borders simply because a child goes missing, there are tried and trusted procedures for these things. It was unfortunate though that back in 2007 there were few if any child alert systems operating across western Europe.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 17, 2015, 01:35:03 PM
Nothing strange about it Lace, you cannot close borders simply because a child goes missing, there are tried and trusted procedures for these things. It was unfortunate though that back in 2007 there were few if any child alert systems operating across western Europe.
It probably would have made sod all difference as she most likely never left Luz.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 01:41:43 PM
Nothing strange about it Lace, you cannot close borders simply because a child goes missing, there are tried and trusted procedures for these things. It was unfortunate though that back in 2007 there were few if any child alert systems operating across western Europe.
I didn't say close the borders, they could have manned the borders, they did do it but hours later.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 01:44:07 PM
You really don't have a clue Lace? Children disappear every day the vast majority of whom turn up safe and well. If the police in any country did what you suggest every time a kid decides to go AWOL then that country would soon come to a standstill. The Portuguese police did everything by the book which by the way included questioning the parents. Nothing unusual about that but surprisingly the parents reacted badly on this occasion.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee are no doubt unimpressed!
They did man the borders, air ports etc. though didn't they? They did but about 12 hours later.
I know children go missing every day, but Madeleine was searched for, not found, also the parents said the bedroom window was open.
The window would have caused alarm bells to ring normally, that someone had come in and taken Madeleine, when she wasn't found then I would think it would have been normal procedure to act as if the child had been abducted.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 01:45:42 PM
It is more than likely she wasn't taken anywhere and remains in Portugal which was where the search should have been expanded instead of wild goose chases all over the world. One could be forgiven for thinking that all those attempts to shift the search away from the Algarve and Portugal were part of a strategy with sinister undertones.
You know that for definite? How?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 17, 2015, 02:17:39 PM
You are talking about questions the police asked when they were accusing Kate of having something to do with Madeleine's disappearance. Of course she didn't answer the questions, her lawyer advised her not to, they were trying to twist what she said in order to accuse her of something. The lawyer knew what they were going to do and warned Kate before hand.
What I said was the McCann's went to the station on the 4th of May, in order for the police to get statements to what had happened so that they had a clear picture of the time up to when Madeleine went missing, it has nothing at all to do with the questions Kate refused to answer.
yes but they didn't get a clear picture did they......how many times did they change there clear account of what happened [statement] fgs....IMO you read too many books
you go on and on ...about what every one else should have DONE.....blame every one like the mccs do ...when in fact if the mccs had DONE responsible parenting ...maddie would be here today...it was the mccs who made the choice to leave them ...no one else...
its obvious ...you don't care if the mccs searched or not ...another one with too much information..lol....that boils down to nothing but c##p
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 17, 2015, 02:35:52 PM
I posted far more likely. There are much easier places in Spain and Portugal to get away from than a small rural backwater in the Western Algarve. It doesn't make any sense to go there to abduct a child and especially a nearly 4-year-old who knew what was what in the world and would be exceedingly difficult to control.
If there was an abduction the culprit would know that it would be discovered almost immediately so escape abroad was always going to be difficult. I still believe she got out and got into diffs possibly involving a third party.
I no longer subscribe to the Tannerman or Smithman theories for that very reason.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 17, 2015, 02:36:17 PM
Why didn't Amaral when informed that Madeleine hadn't been found, knowing the window was open in her bedroom, immediately have road blocks, police at air ports, ferries. He's the one who didn't bother, do the police in Portugal just forget a child is missing after the initial search?
People criticise the McCann's yet they were left alone after the Police left, see you tomorrow they said. How about getting on to the person in charge, saying, we haven't found the child, the window was open in her bedroom the parents think she could have been abducted, shall we put road blocks out, man the airports etc.? No, lets go to bed and think about things tomorrow.
I think the files can tell us what was done;
11pm Two GNR Officers arrive. 11.17pm GNR Commandant informed. 11.50pm Commondant arrives. 12.12am PJ informed. 12.40pm Sniffer dogs requested from Portimao. 1am Search and Rescue dogs requested. 2am Nine Officers called from home arrived and commenced searching with the sniffer dogs. 2am-2.30am PJ Inspector M. J. P. d. L. Q. decided to contact SEF at Faro airport with the aim of alerting them in case anyone would board accompanied by some child, whoever she was and those accompanying her should be duly identified, however the various calls made were not attended. In the face of this situation he contacted the Faro Station from the police and told them what was going on and asked them to alert the SEF. He also decided to alert the GNR in Lagos so that they would send out a warning so that the car and foot patrols that were out on the ground would pay attention and identify cars with people out driving at that time who were accompanied by a child (children). 8am Other officers arrive along with some Rapid Intervention officers and the Search and Rescue dogs.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 17, 2015, 02:48:00 PM
I posted far more likely. There are much easier places in Spain and Portugal to get away from than a small rural backwater in the Western Algarve. It doesn't make any sense to go there to abduct a child and especially a nearly 4-year-old who knew what was what in the world and would be exceedingly difficult to control.
If there was an abduction the culprit would know that it would be discovered almost immediately so escape abroad was always going to be difficult. I still believe she got out and got into diffs.
In Portugal, the eastern end of The Algarve and northern end of The Costa Verde to name but two.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 04:00:47 PM
yes but they didn't get a clear picture did they......how many times did they change there clear account of what happened [statement] fgs....IMO you read too many books
you go on and on ...about what every one else should have DONE.....blame every one like the mccs do ...when in fact if the mccs had DONE responsible parenting ...maddie would be here today...it was the mccs who made the choice to leave them ...no one else...
its obvious ...you don't care if the mccs searched or not ...another one with too much information..lol....that boils down to nothing but c##p
What a peculiar post.
I read too many books do I? I read Kerry's, I read Sara's, that's too many for you is it?
The McCann's did leave the children they made the wrong decision, they should never have left them, that doesn't mean Madeleine didn't deserve a proper investigation does it?
The McCann's did search, the rest of that sentence I'm afraid in incomprehensible to me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 17, 2015, 04:03:21 PM
11pm Two GNR Officers arrive. 11.17pm GNR Commandant informed. 11.50pm Commondant arrives. 12.12am PJ informed. 12.40pm Sniffer dogs requested from Portimao. 1am Search and Rescue dogs requested. 2am Nine Officers called from home arrived and commenced searching with the sniffer dogs. 2am-2.30am PJ Inspector M. J. P. d. L. Q. decided to contact SEF at Faro airport with the aim of alerting them in case anyone would board accompanied by some child, whoever she was and those accompanying her should be duly identified, however the various calls made were not attended. In the face of this situation he contacted the Faro Station from the police and told them what was going on and asked them to alert the SEF. He also decided to alert the GNR in Lagos so that they would send out a warning so that the car and foot patrols that were out on arrive along with some Rapid Intervention officers and the Search and Rescue dogs.
They didn't man the borders until hours later.
Are you sure about the 8am arrival of the dogs?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on November 17, 2015, 04:15:25 PM
If I am reading the files aright, the GNR had sniffer dogs out from around 2.00am on the 4th. Throughout the night they searched ...
" the entire perimeter of the OC, in the urban area, plots of land and the nearest buildings, the officers searching all the place where there was a possibility the child might be, this area being extended later to include all of the beach zone."
Another team arrived around 8.00am. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
Which illustrates the assertion that Madeleine may have been taken and hidden under a rock somewhere, perhaps the beach, and collected and moved later on ... absolutely ... and completely deluded.
The one certainty that can be taken from the GNR dog team searches is that these officers were totally professional and carried out their task with diligence.
For that reason I think had Madeleine been injured in an accident outside the apartment, or had her body been discarded in scrub-land in Luz there is a very good chance these teams would have found her.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 17, 2015, 08:25:11 PM
Deluded like the Alice Gross case which was a month of intensive searching before they discovered the body. Don't be ridiculous.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 17, 2015, 10:26:28 PM
Deluded like the Alice Gross case which was a month of intensive searching before they discovered the body. Don't be ridiculous.
Did the British police really spend a month searching for Alice Gross's body? What a pity the PJ didn't do likewise for Madeleine, instead of giving up so quickly. Why was that?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 17, 2015, 10:43:37 PM
Did the British police really spend a month searching for Alice Gross's body? What a pity the PJ didn't do likewise for Madeleine, instead of giving up so quickly. Why was that?
I doubt anyone on here has the remotest idea that is an accurate reflection. You could always write to the PJ and ask why. From the horses mouth as it were.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 17, 2015, 10:56:18 PM
I doubt anyone on here has the remotest idea that is an accurate reflection. You could always write to the PJ and ask why. From the horses mouth as it were.
your first sentence is not making much sense to me, but thanks for your advice in the second - my question was rhetorical, I didn't expect anyone to be able to answer.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 18, 2015, 12:24:40 AM
Regardless of excuses, the occasions on which the McCanns have searched on the ground in Portugal could be recorded on the back of a postage stamp.
Only in your opinion. Kate has returned to Portugal numerous times since 2007. Unless she sent you her itinery you cannot possibly know whether she spent that time searching or not.
I notice that while you can ridicule the amount of searching that Kate and Gerry did actually carry out, you have no criticism whatsoever of those other parents who did not join in the searching for their missing children - in fact not even enough to be recorded on a pinhead let alone a postage stamp. Such contrary 'logic' is inexplicable to me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 07:57:33 AM
Only in your opinion. Kate has returned to Portugal numerous times since 2007. Unless she sent you her itinery you cannot possibly know whether she spent that time searching or not.
I notice that while you can ridicule the amount of searching that Kate and Gerry did actually carry out, you have no criticism whatsoever of those other parents who did not join in the searching for their missing children - in fact not even enough to be recorded on a pinhead let alone a postage stamp. Such contrary 'logic' is inexplicable to me.
Inexplicable to you ?
Not really, you support the mccanns 100%.
As to her searching............. 8**8:/:
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 18, 2015, 08:07:25 AM
Only in your opinion. Kate has returned to Portugal numerous times since 2007. Unless she sent you her itinery you cannot possibly know whether she spent that time searching or not.
I notice that while you can ridicule the amount of searching that Kate and Gerry did actually carry out, you have no criticism whatsoever of those other parents who did not join in the searching for their missing children - in fact not even enough to be recorded on a pinhead let alone a postage stamp. Such contrary 'logic' is inexplicable to me.
I find it inexplicable that people who profess to know exactly how the McCanns were thinking and feeling at all times seem quite unable to understand how others feel about the lack of concern shown by them on 3rd May. They didn't show any interest in searching for their daughter. I find that inexplicable because if their daughter had been abducted, abused and dumped she would have been terrified. Had she hid in fear whose voice would have persuaded her to show herself? A stranger's or her parent's? As usual the parents seemed utterly unable to empathise with their daughter.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 08:08:32 AM
I find it inexplicable that people who profess to know exactly how the McCanns were thinking and feeling at all times seem quite unable to understand how others feel about the lack of concern shown by them on 3rd May. They didn't show any interest in searching for their daughter. I find that inexplicable because if their daughter had been abducted, abused and dumped she would have been terrified. Had she hid in fear whose voice would have persuaded her to show herself? A stranger's or her parent's? As usual the parents seemed utterly unable to empathise with their daughter.
Excellent post. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 18, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
I find it inexplicable that people who profess to know exactly how the McCanns were thinking and feeling at all times seem quite unable to understand how others feel about the lack of concern shown by them on 3rd May. They didn't show any interest in searching for their daughter. I find that inexplicable because if their daughter had been abducted, abused and dumped she would have been terrified. Had she hid in fear whose voice would have persuaded her to show herself? A stranger's or her parent's? As usual the parents seemed utterly unable to empathise with their daughter.
another biased post from you based solely on your biased opinions. I have no problems with any of the MCCanns behaviour...perhaps it's because I come from a similar background
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 08:17:08 AM
I find it inexplicable that people who profess to know exactly how the McCanns were thinking and feeling at all times seem quite unable to understand how others feel about the lack of concern shown by them on 3rd May. They didn't show any interest in searching for their daughter. I find that inexplicable because if their daughter had been abducted, abused and dumped she would have been terrified. Had she hid in fear whose voice would have persuaded her to show herself? A stranger's or her parent's? As usual the parents seemed utterly unable to empathise with their daughter.
and you'd say exactly the same about the other parents as cited by Benice who also did not search would you?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 08:25:51 AM
another biased post from you based solely on your biased opinions. I have no problems with any of the MCCanns behaviour...perhaps it's because I come from a similar background
A meaningless post on a variety of levels.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 08:33:03 AM
If I am reading the files aright, the GNR had sniffer dogs out from around 2.00am on the 4th. Throughout the night they searched ...
" the entire perimeter of the OC, in the urban area, plots of land and the nearest buildings, the officers searching all the place where there was a possibility the child might be, this area being extended later to include all of the beach zone."
Another team arrived around 8.00am. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
Which illustrates the assertion that Madeleine may have been taken and hidden under a rock somewhere, perhaps the beach, and collected and moved later on ... absolutely ... and completely deluded.
The one certainty that can be taken from the GNR dog team searches is that these officers were totally professional and carried out their task with diligence.
For that reason I think had Madeleine been injured in an accident outside the apartment, or had her body been discarded in scrub-land in Luz there is a very good chance these teams would have found her.
I am sure the police did an excellent job in searching for Madeleine.
I asked about the 8am time as Kate says the police didn't show up to see them until 10am.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 08:39:34 AM
I find it inexplicable that people who profess to know exactly how the McCanns were thinking and feeling at all times seem quite unable to understand how others feel about the lack of concern shown by them on 3rd May. They didn't show any interest in searching for their daughter. I find that inexplicable because if their daughter had been abducted, abused and dumped she would have been terrified. Had she hid in fear whose voice would have persuaded her to show herself? A stranger's or her parent's? As usual the parents seemed utterly unable to empathise with their daughter.
You are not describing what witnesses saw on the evening of the 3rd of May. Lack of concern shown by them on the 3rd???? Witnesses saw Kate come screaming down from the apartment to say Madeleine was missing, the Gerry scrambling and racing to the apartment, the frantic search through the apartment, the waiter who saw Gerry searching around the pool. The friends who saw Gerry collapsing and crying the friends who saw Kate screaming and crying Madeleine's name. The witnesses who saw Kate and Gerry distraught and sobbing. The OC manager who heard Kate scream and he said he had never heard a cry like it. The police who witnessed Gerry fall to his knees in relief when they finally turned up. Kate wandering the roads in the dark calling for Madeleine. Kate insisting Gerry and one of the friends go to the beach again to search for Madeleine. Kate and Gerry getting up at first sign of dawn to search for Madeleine.
ALL THE WINTESSES WHO SAW THEM CRYING AND UNABLE TO FUNCTION, SOME OF THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF TRAUMA.
You call that lack of concern???
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 08:45:52 AM
You are not describing what witnesses saw on the evening of the 3rd of May. Lack of concern shown by them on the 3rd???? Witnesses saw Kate come screaming down from the apartment to say Madeleine was missing, the Gerry scrambling and racing to the apartment, the frantic search through the apartment, the waiter who saw Gerry searching around the pool. The friends who saw Gerry collapsing and crying the friends who saw Kate screaming and crying Madeleine's name. The witnesses who saw Kate and Gerry distraught and sobbing. The OC manager who heard Kate scream and he said he had never heard a cry like it. The police who witnessed Gerry fall to his knees in relief when they finally turned up. Kate wandering the roads in the dark calling for Madeleine. Kate insisting Gerry and one of the friends go to the beach again to search for Madeleine. Kate and Gerry getting up at first sign of dawn to search for Madeleine.
ALL THE WINTESSES WHO SAW THEM CRYING AND UNABLE TO FUNCTION, SOME OF THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF TRAUMA.
You call that lack of concern???
Which witnesses and which experts ?
Cites please.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 18, 2015, 08:48:42 AM
I find it inexplicable that people who profess to know exactly how the McCanns were thinking and feeling at all times seem quite unable to understand how others feel about the lack of concern shown by them on 3rd May. They didn't show any interest in searching for their daughter. I find that inexplicable because if their daughter had been abducted, abused and dumped she would have been terrified. Had she hid in fear whose voice would have persuaded her to show herself? A stranger's or her parent's? As usual the parents seemed utterly unable to empathise with their daughter.
I'm afraid I don't recognise your description of the McCanns reaction to finding their daughter was missing from her bed.
The various accounts of how they reacted given by people who were actually there - do not give the impression that the McCanns were disinterested or unconcerned in any way, shape or form. Quite the opposite in fact - they were in deep shock and frantic. They did search that night, both before the PJ arrived and after they had left. How you equate that with having no interest in searching for her is inexplicable to me.
There is no instruction manual on how to react when you find your child missing and believe her to be abducted. It's noticeable however that it is only folk who have never been in their situation who have decided that because the McCanns didn't react how THEY think they should - then there must be something 'sinister' going on.
That is obviously not the view of those parents who HAVE been in their situation and who do support the McCanns. Not only have they met the McCanns, but they too have had the same opportunity as the rest of us to examine the files.
In view of their ongoing support for the McCanns - it must be a source of great puzzlement to you - as to how those other parents could get it all soooooo wrong.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 08:54:08 AM
I'm afraid I don't recognise your description of the McCanns reaction to finding their daughter was missing from her bed.
The various accounts of how they reacted given by people who were actually there - do not give the impression that the McCanns were disinterested or unconcerned in any way, shape or form. Quite the opposite in fact - they were in deep shock and frantic. They did search that night, both before the PJ arrived and after they had left. How you equate that with having no interest in searching for her is inexplicable to me.
There is no instruction manual on how to react when you find your child missing and believe her to be abducted. It's noticeable however that it is only folk who have never been in their situation who have decided that because the McCanns didn't react how THEY think they should - then there must be something 'sinister' going on.
That is obviously not the view of those parents who HAVE been in their situation and who do support the McCanns. Not only have they met the McCanns, but they too have had the same opportunity as the rest of us to examine the files.
In view of their ongoing support for the McCanns - it must be a source of great puzzlement to you - as to how those other parents could get it all soooooo wrong.
Provide evidence they searched after the PJ left, and I am not talking about the brief walk the following morning.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 09:01:14 AM
Why don't you read the statements from the people who were there on the 3rd of May Stephen? Who actually witnessed how the McCann's reacted, instead of making up what you think happened.
The friends were Drs. they are experts in witnessing people who have been traumatised, they stated the McCann's were utterly inconsolable.
I find the remarks from you and others to be quite sickening, these are parents whose daughter disappeared, can you imagine what they must have gone through?
Parents who have just lost their child for minutes in a shop, on the beach can only slightly imagine what they went through, you on the other hand have no empathy at all.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 09:06:02 AM
Provide evidence they searched after the PJ left, and I am not talking about the brief walk the following morning.
What BRIEF walk the following morning? You mean the hour they spent searching for Madeleine, you should be ashamed of the way you talk.
I read a booklet on line one that had been written for parents on the event that one of their children should go missing, search for an hour or so it said then call the police.
Other parents of missing children have searched for an hour before calling the police, when told this though you choose to ignore it.
Why are you singling the McCann's out for this treatment?
Don't go saying I am here because I adore the McCann's etc. etc. No, it's because I can see the way in which people are singling them out for different treatment, it just makes me angry that this can go on.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 09:12:01 AM
What BRIEF walk the following morning? You mean the hour they spent searching for Madeleine, you should be ashamed of the way you talk.
I read a booklet on line one that had been written for parents on the event that one of their children should go missing, search for an hour or so it said then call the police.
Other parents of missing children have searched for an hour before calling the police, when told this though you choose to ignore it.
Why are you singling the McCann's out for this treatment?
Don't go saying I am here because I adore the McCann's etc. etc. No, it's because I can see the way in which people are singling them out for different treatment, it just makes me angry that this can go on.
We already know how you feel for the mccanns, so don't deny it.
So Madeleine was worth an hours walk eh ? &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 18, 2015, 09:19:13 AM
You are not describing what witnesses saw on the evening of the 3rd of May. Lack of concern shown by them on the 3rd???? Witnesses saw Kate come screaming down from the apartment to say Madeleine was missing, the Gerry scrambling and racing to the apartment, the frantic search through the apartment, the waiter who saw Gerry searching around the pool. The friends who saw Gerry collapsing and crying the friends who saw Kate screaming and crying Madeleine's name. The witnesses who saw Kate and Gerry distraught and sobbing. The OC manager who heard Kate scream and he said he had never heard a cry like it. The police who witnessed Gerry fall to his knees in relief when they finally turned up. Kate wandering the roads in the dark calling for Madeleine. Kate insisting Gerry and one of the friends go to the beach again to search for Madeleine. Kate and Gerry getting up at first sign of dawn to search for Madeleine.
ALL THE WINTESSES WHO SAW THEM CRYING AND UNABLE TO FUNCTION, SOME OF THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF TRAUMA.
You call that lack of concern???
Does screaming, crying, hitting headboards, and collapsing demonstrate concern for others? At the scene of an accident do doctors, firemen and policemen show concern for the injured in that manner? If one's child has an accident in the home does one collapse screaming and crying or does one show concern by controlling oneself and being practical? There's more than one way to interpret their reactions, I'm afraid.
The OC manager heard no scream. The waiter said it was Gerry. That's the only reference to him searching that I can recall. When did Kate wander dark streets? When did Kate send her husband to search the beach?
Please don't quote from Kate's book, that was written with hindsight well after the event.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 09:28:37 AM
Does screaming, crying, hitting headboards, and collapsing demonstrate concern for others? At the scene of an accident do doctors, firemen and policemen show concern for the injured in that manner? If one's child has an accident in the home does one collapse screaming and crying or does one show concern by controlling oneself and being practical? There's more than one way to interpret their reactions, I'm afraid.
The OC manager heard no scream. The waiter said it was Gerry. That's the only reference to him searching that I can recall. When did Kate wander dark streets? When did Kate send her husband to search the beach?
Please don't quote from Kate's book, that was written with hindsight well after the event.
A child having an accident at home is completely different from finding your child missing from her bed and the window open isn't it?
Drs. Firemen and the police are not investigating their OWN child are they?
Have you no idea how parents who find their child missing and then realise that she is no where around the apartment feels?
I think you should go and have a read up about how these parents do feel, then come back and post.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 09:32:34 AM
Does screaming, crying, hitting headboards, and collapsing demonstrate concern for others? At the scene of an accident do doctors, firemen and policemen show concern for the injured in that manner? If one's child has an accident in the home does one collapse screaming and crying or does one show concern by controlling oneself and being practical? There's more than one way to interpret their reactions, I'm afraid.
The OC manager heard no scream. The waiter said it was Gerry. That's the only reference to him searching that I can recall. When did Kate wander dark streets? When did Kate send her husband to search the beach?
Please don't quote from Kate's book, that was written with hindsight well after the event.
What are you talking about the OC club manager heard no scream? Have you read the Summers and Swan book? They interviewed the OC manager and he described the scream and that it was Kate.
The waiter did say it was Gerry searching, the friends say he was searching too, or are they all in on a secret pact to hide what happened in 5a?
Kate did say in her book that she asked Gerry and friend to search the beach, which would be confirmed by the friend no doubt.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 09:34:28 AM
We already know how you feel for the mccanns, so don't deny it.
So Madeleine was worth an hours walk eh ? &%+((£
There is no point 'debating' with you, that last comment is disgusting and only out to taunt and mock you know full well it wasn't a walk, you make me sick.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
It seems to me that some haven't read the statements in the Police files, as they come up with ridiculous posts saying that the McCann's were not concerned about Madeleine when she disappeared on the 3rd of May.
I expect it is because it holds up the belief for them that the McCann's knew she was dead and that they didn't have to put on a show and search.
Strange though isn't it, how all the friends and other witnesses who were there that night tell a different story.
Then of course all the friends and witnesses are 'in on it' aren't they.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 09:38:50 AM
There is no point 'debating' with you, that last comment is disgusting and only out to taunt and mock you know full well it wasn't a walk, you make me sick.
You don't debate, you want to whitewash the mccanns.
It isn't going to work.
As to my last comment, that 1 hour is the last time they searched, FACT.
1 HOUR AND THAT WAS THAT.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 09:45:15 AM
Quote from the crisis manager who has 20 years experience in dealing with people -
Did you suspect them? "My God, no, absolutely not in any way at any stage. I walked into that apartment and just saw two people who were frantic that their daughter had gone missing. Nobody could possibly, if they had anything to do with that, behave in that way for so long.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 09:47:20 AM
Quote from the crisis manager to has 20 years experience in dealing with people -
Did you suspect them? "My God, no, absolutely not in any way at any stage. I walked into that apartment and just saw two people who were frantic that their daughter had gone missing. Nobody could possibly, if they had anything to do with that, behave in that way for so long.
What crisis manager ?
For whatever reasons she 'disappeared', there would be panic.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 09:49:51 AM
Does screaming, crying, hitting headboards, and collapsing demonstrate concern for others? At the scene of an accident do doctors, firemen and policemen show concern for the injured in that manner? If one's child has an accident in the home does one collapse screaming and crying or does one show concern by controlling oneself and being practical? There's more than one way to interpret their reactions, I'm afraid.
The OC manager heard no scream. The waiter said it was Gerry. That's the only reference to him searching that I can recall. When did Kate wander dark streets? When did Kate send her husband to search the beach?
Please don't quote from Kate's book, that was written with hindsight well after the event.
Do people who lose their chldren in supermarkets, on beaches etc. etc. remain cool calm and collected and calmly start organising a search - or are they struck with panic within seconds?
What the reaction of people attending accidents etc where the victim is not their own child has got to do with anything is beyond me. It has no relevance.
When my son broke his arm as a small boy - my reaction on seeing his misshapen arm - was to faint on the spot. No doubt that makes me a bad parent in your eyes - as I should have controlled myself for his sake.
IMO people who insist that they know how they would react in the same circumstance as the McCanns are kidding themselves. They only THINK they know.
I see you have no explanation as to why those other parents of missing children, who have been in the same nightmare situation as the McCanns, have no criticism of them at all and fully support and believe them.
Why do you think they are wrong and you are right? Of all people surely they are the ones who could spot a fake in no time. To disregard their support and understanding out of hand is unrealistic IMO - and also quite insulting to them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 10:05:33 AM
Note to Benice and Lace - you cannot reason with people with such entrenched, un-empathetic and downright illogical views as are displayed here, you may as give up.
I'm just curious what this perceived lack of searching says to these people - that the McCanns just didn't like Madeleine that much and so couldn't be bothered to look for her, or that they knew there was no point looking for her but they also couldn't be arsed to put on a convincing act of looking for her either - which one is it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 18, 2015, 10:07:11 AM
Only in your opinion. Kate has returned to Portugal numerous times since 2007. Unless she sent you her itinery you cannot possibly know whether she spent that time searching or not.
I notice that while you can ridicule the amount of searching that Kate and Gerry did actually carry out, you have no criticism whatsoever of those other parents who did not join in the searching for their missing children - in fact not even enough to be recorded on a pinhead let alone a postage stamp. Such contrary 'logic' is inexplicable to me.
There is little doubt that the GNR did what they could as far as searching goes ... but it quickly became apparent to them that the case was outwith their remit and would require the attention of a force within the heirararchy which had more expertise in detection skills ~ namely the Policia Judicairia.
We are told the co-ordinator took the call while at dinner.
We now know that he was also constituted arguido in the torture case brought against him in the only other case he had investigated of a missing child who also was never found. This happened on the 4th of May ... the day after Madeleine's disappearance when searching for her was at its height.
We have seen pictures of Rebelo inspecting the scene of the crime when he took over the case and being very 'hands on' with every aspect.
When did Mr Amaral turn up in Luz to direct and co-ordinate the search?
I think his diary may have been rather full on the 4th. (I know the wonders of modern technology has given us telephone communications ... but not quite the same as being there in person taking control of the situation).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 18, 2015, 10:19:13 AM
Why don't you read the statements from the people who were there on the 3rd of May Stephen? Who actually witnessed how the McCann's reacted, instead of making up what you think happened.
The friends were Drs. they are experts in witnessing people who have been traumatised, they stated the McCann's were utterly inconsolable.
I find the remarks from you and others to be quite sickening, these are parents whose daughter disappeared, can you imagine what they must have gone through?
Parents who have just lost their child for minutes in a shop, on the beach can only slightly imagine what they went through, you on the other hand have no empathy at all.
We had not seen the McCanns since Thursday, when suddenly they appeared by the pool. The surreal limbo of the past two days suddenly snapped back into painful, awful realtime.
It was a shock: the physical transformation of these two human beings was sickening - I felt it as a physical blow. Kate's back and shoulders, her hands, her mouth had reshaped themselves in to the angular manifestation of a silent scream.
I thought I might cry and turned so that she wouldn't see.
Gerry was upright, his lips now drawn into a thin, impenetrable line.
Some people, including Jes, tried to offer comfort. Some gave them hugs. Some stared at their feet, words eluding them. We all wondered what to do. That was the last time we saw Gerry and Kate. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
It soon became apparent that if these parents wished their daughter to be found they would have to do the searching for her themselves.
Which is exactly what they had to do until six years into Madeleine's disappearance when the cold case into her disappearance was reactivated and became a very live one.
I doubt if there is another couple in the world who could have accomplished what they have in the search for their daughter.
Totally risible to suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 10:29:48 AM
We had not seen the McCanns since Thursday, when suddenly they appeared by the pool. The surreal limbo of the past two days suddenly snapped back into painful, awful realtime.
It was a shock: the physical transformation of these two human beings was sickening - I felt it as a physical blow. Kate's back and shoulders, her hands, her mouth had reshaped themselves in to the angular manifestation of a silent scream.
I thought I might cry and turned so that she wouldn't see.
Gerry was upright, his lips now drawn into a thin, impenetrable line.
Some people, including Jes, tried to offer comfort. Some gave them hugs. Some stared at their feet, words eluding them. We all wondered what to do. That was the last time we saw Gerry and Kate. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
It soon became apparent that if these parents wished their daughter to be found they would have to do the searching for her themselves.
Which is exactly what they had to do until six years into Madeleine's disappearance when the cold case into her disappearance was reactivated and became a very live one.
I doubt if there is another couple in the world who could have accomplished what they have in the search for their daughter.
Totally risible to suggest otherwise.
But surely internet commentators who weren't actually there and who have never met the McCanns are in a far better position to judge their behaviour and what there were capable o,f than some woman who was actually there and witnessed it all first hand .... &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 18, 2015, 10:32:06 AM
There is little doubt that the GNR did what they could as far as searching goes ... but it quickly became apparent to them that the case was outwith their remit and would require the attention of a force within the heirararchy which had more expertise in detection skills ~ namely the Policia Judicairia.
We are told the co-ordinator took the call while at dinner.
We now know that he was also constituted arguido in the torture case brought against him in the only other case of a missing child who was never found. This happened on the 4th of May ... the day after Madeleine's disappearance when searching for her was at its height.
We have seen pictures of Rebelo inspecting the scene of the crime when he took over the case and being very 'hands on' with every aspect.
When did Mr Amaral turn up in Luz to direct and co-ordinate the search?
I think his diary may have been rather full on the 4th. (I know the wonders of modern technology has given us telephone communications ... but not quite the same as being there in person taking control of the situation).
I agree Brietta. The first few days were the most important in this case and I find it impossible to believe that having been made an Arguido in a case involving torture that Amaral was giving his full concentration to the McCann case during that extremely vital time. IMO he would have been thinking more about his own plight - and the threat to his own future than anything else - especially as a prison sentence was not out of the question.
In his book Amaral makes no reference at all to how long he spent away from the case being interviewed and made an arguido on the 4th May - in fact it's as if it never happened.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 18, 2015, 10:32:21 AM
What are you talking about the OC club manager heard no scream? Have you read the Summers and Swan book? They interviewed the OC manager and he described the scream and that it was Kate.
The waiter did say it was Gerry searching, the friends say he was searching too, or are they all in on a secret pact to hide what happened in 5a?
Kate did say in her book that she asked Gerry and friend to search the beach, which would be confirmed by the friend no doubt.
Of course I haven't read the Summers and Swan book. If John Hill heard a scream then Kate must have screamed more than once. The only scream in the PJ files was when Kate was on the balcony and was heard by the waiter Jeronimo Salcedas.
The only friend I can find who was out with Gerald was David Payne at around 4am. All descriptions of searching feature only David, Matt and Russell with Dianne and Fiona doing a quick look each. As i said, Kate's book was written with hindsight.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 10:36:38 AM
For whatever reasons she 'disappeared', there would be panic.
This crisis manager -
Mr Woolfall has provided the first detailed account by an insider of what happened to the McCanns during the desperate days after Madeleine disappeared. He is an expert in crisis PR at the communications group Bell Pottinger and flew to Portugal as part of the Mark Warner holiday company’s emergency response team on Saturday, May 5. Madeleine vanished on the evening of May 3. - See more at: http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/alex-woolfalljohn-hill/#sthash.9epBwNML.dpuf
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 10:39:37 AM
For whatever reasons she 'disappeared', there would be panic.
There is also the statement of this crisis councellor -
Witness Statement of Alan Robert PIKE Occupation: Crisis Counsellor 2008.05.07 This testimony (constituted by two pages and signed by me) is the truth and in accordance with my understanding. I give this testimony with the knowledge that, knowingly making false statements may subject me to legal action.
Date: 07 of May 2008 Signature: __________________________________________
I am the above reference person and live at the physical address already provided the police. I work as a crisis counsellor. DC Holliday and DC Ferguson of the Leicestershire police questioned me on behalf of the Portuguese police relative To my involvement with Gerald and Kate McCann whose daughter disappeared from Praia da Luz in Portugal in May of 2007.
I have been a crisis counsellor for about 3 and a half years, and work for a private agency titled 'The Centre for Crisis Psychology' (or CCP). Before this job, I worked as a social worker for about 11 years. CCP has agreements with other agencies who can request our services, like for example, the placement to a holiday to offer assistance to someone who has suffered a traumatic event. There are many different aspects in my profession, but this one seems to me the most relevant to my testimony.
I would say that my experience with CCP was required in order to help people abroad who find themselves confronted with tragic situations, for a total of between 30 and 60 times. I got to know Gerald McCann and Kate Healy on Saturday, May 5, 2007. I would describe my relationship with them in totally clinical terms. I provided them counselling help with regards to their emotional state provoked by the fact that they were separated from their daughter Madeleine. I spoke with Gerry and Kate very early in the morning on the 5th of May, 2007. Our services were requested by the Mark Warner agency. I travelled specifically to speak to them in person, and with the family and agency functionaries. Kate and Gerry had been awake for two nights when I got to know them.
I do not remember specifically what they said about Madeleine's disappearance and I did not ask them about the circumstances in which the disappearance occurred. My purpose at the time was their emotional state. My role was not to question them regarding the disappearance or to investigate. Upon reflection however, they always referred to their daughter's disappearance as an 'abduction.'
I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information. They were insecure as to how to help and with the lack of help and assistance. Their comportment did not surprise me. It was a comportment which I have witnessed a lot at times when a trauma is suffered. In my opinion, their reaction relative to the disappearance of Madeleine, as already stated above, was completely within the bounds of what one would expect of parents whose daughter was taken from them against their will.
I was not there to judge the reaction of Kate or Gerry, but I would say that their behaviour was consistent, according to my knowledge of that which they were experiencing. I helped them deal with the situation and offered them face to face counselling on many occasions, since the day I met with them in Portugal and in Leicester. They and the rest of the family have access to a 24-hour telephone help line. At CCP we use a psychological method in each of clinical interventions that allows the patient to relive their traumatic experience, discuss his or her physical and emotional reactions and after provide counselling and support that helps them deal with these emotions in the short and long-term.
Since the return of Kate and Gerry to the U.K., I have worked for them privately but my relationship here has been exclusively clinical in nature.
This testimony was made by me and is the truth according to my understanding.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 10:39:48 AM
Of course I haven't read the Summers and Swan book. If John Hill heard a scream then Kate must have screamed more than once. The only scream in the PJ files was when Kate was on the balcony and was heard by the waiter Jeronimo Salcedas.
The only friend I can find who was out with Gerald was David Payne at around 4am. All descriptions of searching feature only David, Matt and Russell with Dianne and Fiona doing a quick look each. As i said, Kate's book was written with hindsight.
Didn't a policeman see Kate and Gerry out searching at 6am that morning?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 10:48:20 AM
I agree Brietta. The first few days were the most important in this case and I find it impossible to believe that having been made an Arguido in a case involving torture that Amaral was giving his full concentration to the McCann case during that extremely vital time. IMO he would have been thinking more about his own plight - and the threat to his own future than anything else - especially as a prison sentence was not out of the question.
In his book Amaral makes no reference at all to how long he spent away from the case being interviewed and made an arguido on the 4th May - in fact it's as if it never happened.
Any reader of his book could be forgiven for assuming that he had spoken with Madeleine's parents when in fact he had not.
He certainly has a gift as a word-smith who can infer a situation without actually saying the words.
Did he criticise the Drs McCann for not searching? or is this entirely an internet aberration?
I rather thought his criticism was that they had done too much searching by doing what the police ought to have done and getting her image out there.
Perhaps he might have seen it differently had he been at the scene to take control.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 18, 2015, 11:01:32 AM
Didn't a policeman see Kate and Gerry out searching at 6am that morning?
Yes.
However when one is cherry picking one's information certain known facts must be left out ... that includes anything which does not support the particular prejudice one might be promulgating at that particular moment in time.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 11:20:12 AM
Note to Benice and Lace - you cannot reason with people with such entrenched, un-empathetic and downright illogical views as are displayed here, you may as give up.
I'm just curious what this perceived lack of searching says to these people - that the McCanns just didn't like Madeleine that much and so couldn't be bothered to look for her, or that they knew there was no point looking for her but they also couldn't be arsed to put on a convincing act of looking for her either - which one is it?
Does Madeleine get a look in here with the mccann supporters club.
The illogic on display is the rampant protection of the mccanns who are solely responsible for what they did and the grief it bought.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 11:24:31 AM
There is also the statement of this crisis councillor -
Witness Statement of Alan Robert PIKE Occupation: Crisis Counsellor 2008.05.07 This testimony (constituted by two pages and signed by me) is the truth and in accordance with my understanding. I give this testimony with the knowledge that, knowingly making false statements may subject me to legal action.
Date: 07 of May 2008 Signature: __________________________________________
I am the above reference person and live at the physical address already provided the police. I work as a crisis counsellor. DC Holliday and DC Ferguson of the Leicestershire police questioned me on behalf of the Portuguese police relative To my involvement with Gerald and Kate McCann whose daughter disappeared from Praia da Luz in Portugal in May of 2007.
I have been a crisis counsellor for about 3 and a half years, and work for a private agency titled 'The Centre for Crisis Psychology' (or CCP). Before this job, I worked as a social worker for about 11 years. CCP has agreements with other agencies who can request our services, like for example, the placement to a holiday to offer assistance to someone who has suffered a traumatic event. There are many different aspects in my profession, but this one seems to me the most relevant to my testimony.
I would say that my experience with CCP was required in order to help people abroad who find themselves confronted with tragic situations, for a total of between 30 and 60 times. I got to know Gerald McCann and Kate Healy on Saturday, May 5, 2007. I would describe my relationship with them in totally clinical terms. I provided them counselling help with regards to their emotional state provoked by the fact that they were separated from their daughter Madeleine. I spoke with Gerry and Kate very early in the morning on the 5th of May, 2007. Our services were requested by the Mark Warner agency. I travelled specifically to speak to them in person, and with the family and agency functionaries. Kate and Gerry had been awake for two nights when I got to know them.
I do not remember specifically what they said about Madeleine's disappearance and I did not ask them about the circumstances in which the disappearance occurred. My purpose at the time was their emotional state. My role was not to question them regarding the disappearance or to investigate. Upon reflection however, they always referred to their daughter's disappearance as an 'abduction.'
I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information. They were insecure as to how to help and with the lack of help and assistance. Their comportment did not surprise me. It was a comportment which I have witnessed a lot at times when a trauma is suffered. In my opinion, their reaction relative to the disappearance of Madeleine, as already stated above, was completely within the bounds of what one would expect of parents whose daughter was taken from them against their will.
I was not there to judge the reaction of Kate or Gerry, but I would say that their behaviour was consistent, according to my knowledge of that which they were experiencing. I helped them deal with the situation and offered them face to face counselling on many occasions, since the day I met with them in Portugal and in Leicester. They and the rest of the family have access to a 24-hour telephone help line. At CCP we use a psychological method in each of clinical interventions that allows the patient to relive their traumatic experience, discuss his or her physical and emotional reactions and after provide counselling and support that helps them deal with these emotions in the short and long-term.
Since the return of Kate and Gerry to the U.K., I have worked for them privately but my relationship here has been exclusively clinical in nature.
This testimony was made by me and is the truth according to my understanding.
A man employed by the mccanns.
Enough said.
Perhaps you should read through his statement again.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 11:27:39 AM
You are not describing what witnesses saw on the evening of the 3rd of May. Lack of concern shown by them on the 3rd???? Witnesses saw Kate come screaming down from the apartment to say Madeleine was missing, the Gerry scrambling and racing to the apartment, the frantic search through the apartment, the waiter who saw Gerry searching around the pool. The friends who saw Gerry collapsing and crying the friends who saw Kate screaming and crying Madeleine's name. The witnesses who saw Kate and Gerry distraught and sobbing. The OC manager who heard Kate scream and he said he had never heard a cry like it. The police who witnessed Gerry fall to his knees in relief when they finally turned up. Kate wandering the roads in the dark calling for Madeleine. Kate insisting Gerry and one of the friends go to the beach again to search for Madeleine. Kate and Gerry getting up at first sign of dawn to search for Madeleine.
ALL THE WINTESSES WHO SAW THEM CRYING AND UNABLE TO FUNCTION, SOME OF THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF TRAUMA.
You call that lack of concern???
Not according to the first GNR officers on the scene. They didn't see any tears only wailing sounds. A young child can scream for attention too.
He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 11:32:04 AM
Yes, but did the GNR do a tear swab? How closely were they monitoring the McCanns tear ducts, and how could they see them anyway if they were prostrate with their bums in the air as shown...hmmmm? &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 11:33:54 AM
Yes, but did the GNR do a tear swab? How closely were they monitoring the McCanns tear ducts, and how could they see them anyway if they were prostrate with their bums in the air as shown...hmmmm? &%+((£
On 3rd May he was on duty at the events, he arrived at the OC at about 23.00 accompanied by Officer Costa. They were the first to arrive on the scene.
He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 11:38:20 AM
He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm
How very odd that he only makes this observation many months later, after they have been made arguidos... &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 18, 2015, 11:42:27 AM
He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm
Gerry threw himself at the officers feet as he was so relieved they had arrived, he was distraught and frantic waiting for them.
The McCann's lying on the bed crying and praying might have seemed odd to them, but it doesn't to many who could understand the sheer panic, helplessness and desperation they were feeling.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 11:47:20 AM
He comes to the process as a witness. He is an officer with the Lagos GNR and has worked for the Guarda for 21 years.
He confirms the integrity of his previous statements.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm
In his earlier statement he says the McCanns were crying, in his later statement that they were making noises "identical" to crying but it wasn't crying.... hmmm....I don't suppose his judgement was in any way coloured by the fact that the McCanns had been designated as arguidos in the interim? No, of course not!!!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 11:48:35 AM
How very odd that he only makes this observation many months later, after they have been made arguidos... &%+((£
Yes, well it does make you wonder doesn't it. All the other witnesses' saying they were crying uncontrollably, though they could have been trying to put on a brave face for the police, they did go into another room to cry when the police were there.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 11:50:19 AM
Didn't a policeman see Kate and Gerry out searching at 6am that morning?
Was it this Policeman Alfred, he saw them at 7 so probably coming back from their search -
Date: 27/05/16
Witness Statement
Paolo Jorge Fernandes Neto
GNR Officer
He has been a GNR officer since 2002.
On the night of 4th May at 01.00 after having begun duty at his post, he first heard, from the Patrol Commander, Officer Casimiro, that a girl had disappeared and that he to go and join his colleagues who were there.
At about 01.05-01.20 they arrived at the site. They went to Sergeant Duarte, Commander of the Lagos GNR division, who was on the corner pavement between Rua Agostinho da Silva and Rua Francisco Gentil Martins, where they were informed about the disappearance of a little girl from an apartment at the OC tourist complex.
Afterwards they received a photograph of Madeleine McCann and received orders to search the whole of the Rua da Ramalhete and the access points to Quinta da Bela Vista.
They did not enter the apartment zone nor the parking area opposite.
The patrol he was a member of did not contact anyone, nor were they approached by anyone.
He saw many people, mainly British, who were helping with the searching.
At about 02.15-02.30 and after having helped his colleagues from the PJ who had arrived at the site, they contacted the Commander again and were told to search the area surrounding the resort.
During this search they were approached by two people, one, a Portuguese individual who worked at the Mirage Complex, who asked if they knew anything yet, and by a female who was with the individual and who participated in the conversation.
They were in the area until about 09.00 searching in coordination with GNR team members, at which time they were relieved by other officers who came on duty.
He remembers that he saw the McCann couple at about 07.00 alone in the street next to the site where they were stationed.
He did not enter the apartment where the disappearance took place.
Reads, signs, ratifies.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 18, 2015, 12:20:14 PM
Gerry threw himself at the officers feet as he was so relieved they had arrived, he was distraught and frantic waiting for them.
The McCann's lying on the bed crying and praying might have seemed odd to them, but it doesn't to many who could understand the sheer panic, helplessness and desperation they were feeling.
It's great how some people believe they understand exactly how the McCanns felt that night and why. Different interpretations are possible, and no-one's opinion can be proved to be the correct one.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 18, 2015, 12:45:00 PM
Gerry threw himself at the officers feet as he was so relieved they had arrived, he was distraught and frantic waiting for them.
The McCann's lying on the bed crying and praying might have seemed odd to them, but it doesn't to many who could understand the sheer panic, helplessness and desperation they were feeling.
I understand that on occasion such is the distress of parents in similar circumstances that sedation is required.
I find it rather odd that the McCann distress has been caricatured in the way it was in the Amaral 'documentary' ... I find it rather odd that fictionalised representation of their distress is being used by posters as a stick to beat them with in the more sophisticated environment of modern media.
I find it decidedly odd that it has managed to rear its two large bottoms on a thread where we are supposed to be discussing searches ... but there you go and here we are ... again.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 01:06:29 PM
It's great how some people believe they understand exactly how the McCanns felt that night and why. Different interpretations are possible, and no-one's opinion can be proved to be the correct one.
But you seem quite certain that they had no empathy at all for their own missing daughter! Go figure...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 18, 2015, 01:14:34 PM
It's great how some people believe they understand exactly how the McCanns felt that night and why. Different interpretations are possible, and no-one's opinion can be proved to be the correct one.
my interpretation is of devastated parents who believe their daughter has been abducted...and it seems SY agree.... who agrees with your intepretation
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 01:28:49 PM
If they had they didn't look for her. Screaming and crying helps no-one.
They did look for her, and screaming and crying is an understanadable response, although not apparently to you and the GNR policeman who made his statement about it. Perhaps it is not the McCanns who lack empathy...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2015, 01:40:12 PM
But you seem quite certain that they had no empathy at all for their own missing daughter! Go figure...
A 1 hour stroll to look for their daughter.
Go figure.......
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 18, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
It just doesn't happen that a stranger enters a residence where children are having a slumber party ... bind them ... put pillowslips over their heads ... and kidnap one of their number. All while the parents sleep soundly under the same roof. Far too risky.
But that is exactly what happened to Polly Klaas.
Polly disappeared from her bedroom leaving other children behind. Madeleine disappeared from her bedroom leaving other children behind.
Polly's abduction was witnessed ... and as soon as the alarm was raised the search for her initiated. Madeleine's abductor may have been witnessed ... and as soon as the alarm was raised ... it seems her parents' fears that she had been abducted fell on deaf ears.
How long would it have taken Polly Klaas's parents to search an area of "1000 square miles of apple orchards, fields, oak savannahs and redwood stands".
Or take a plane to do an aerial survey of over 3000 square miles of territory at the same time as recording everything on CAD maps.
Is there any criticism of them if they did not ... or any criticism of them or suggestion that they should have.
**Snip Two weeks after Polly's kidnapping, her mother Eve Nichol was quoted by the Press Democrat (Dec. 10, 1993) as saying,
"I have a daughter out there--without shoes."
Her expression of pure motherhood brought the situation into perspective. While there were many, many people who cared for Polly and searched for Polly, this little girl would always be the beloved daughter of her very own parents.
A candle burned in her window for nine weeks. The flame was extinguished when they were told her remains had been found. http://www.pollyklaas.org/about/pollys-story.html
In very much the same way that Kate McCann's little girl ... "out there -- without shoes" ... is beloved by her parents who have never ever stopped searching for her.
To claim otherwise is nonsense.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 18, 2015, 02:07:27 PM
What time was that then? And how did the searchers-cum-body-occulters know that the coast was completely clear?
The best time was obviously when it was still dark and had gone quiet. Searches finished at 4am and most went home to get some sleep. 8am more searchers arrived to start their day so it's easy to find the best time to do it if that was your intention.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 18, 2015, 03:11:04 PM
The best time was obviously when it was still dark and had gone quiet. Searches finished at 4am and most went home to get some sleep. 8am more searchers arrived to start their day so it's easy to find the best time to do it if that was your intention.
So, there was no one out and about searching at all in PdL between 4am and 8am? And the body occulters would have known this how, exactly?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 03:43:47 PM
If they had they didn't look for her. Screaming and crying helps no-one.
absolutely true but a normal first reaction at the thought of maddie being abducted. they realised that to be of any us e they had to pull themselves together...hence the jogging etc
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 18, 2015, 04:04:48 PM
absolutely true but a normal first reaction at the thought of maddie being abducted. they realised that to be of any us e they had to pull themselves together...hence the jogging etc
What a load of cobblers.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 18, 2015, 07:18:55 PM
Somewhere that the Police, dogs, searchers and locals(who knew the area) had not already searched, of course……………………… Very clever indeed, for folks who did not know the area, to do that………….Don’t you think? And the wild dogs that were wandering around, didn’t find anything either.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 01:23:31 PM
absolutely true but a normal first reaction at the thought of maddie being abducted. they realised that to be of any us e they had to pull themselves together...hence the jogging etc
A normal reaction in your opinion. In my opinion a normal reaction by a parent to a missing child is to run, search and call the child's name.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 19, 2015, 01:37:30 PM
Somewhere that the Police, dogs, searchers and locals(who knew the area) had not already searched, of course……………………… Very clever indeed, for folks who did not know the area, to do that………….Don’t you think? And the wild dogs that were wandering around, didn’t find anything either.
In all the time I've been out here I've never seen a wild dog.
It is normal practice here to walk dogs off the lead in many situations, so I have had a run in with a trio of dogs that a German had let run loose.
And in places like farms, the dogs are allowed out without the farm gates being shut.
But I could not find a wild dog if my life depended on it.
PS the mound searched by SY happens to be considered a place to let dogs run off the lead.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 19, 2015, 03:33:06 PM
A quick run around the tennis courts by Gerald. An hour the following morning. Anything else? With cites, of course.
So what would you have done? Not have been there for the police? That would look good wouldn't it? Also it would have sceptics talking 'oh Gerry wasn't there when the Police arrived, hiding Madeleine's body was he, couldn't be bothered to turn up could he'.
They searched all around 5a where Madeleine could have gone, they searched the beach. They went out the following morning to search again. They no doubt expected the police to be there first thing, so they were there waiting for them, they turned up at 10 o'clock. They went to the station.
Now it's all very well people saying they should have searched more, but in reality, they did what they could, and well within what other parents of missing children have done.
After a day or two without finding her, what do you think the chances of them finding her alive would have been? Who wants the parents of a child to find their child dead?
Maybe you think they should have searched peoples homes for her? Well how could they do that? They would have needed the Police to do that sort of thing.
What happened when Gerry was on the beach talking on his phone? Amaral said 'he wasn't looking for crabs that's for sure.' Now I take that as meaning, he was looking for Madeleine. So did he think Gerry had hidden her on the beach? The beach was searched with dogs, but you can see what sort of things were said when the McCann's were innocently photographed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 19, 2015, 03:45:52 PM
So what would you have done? Not have been there for the police? That would look good wouldn't it? Also it would have sceptics talking 'oh Gerry wasn't there when the Police arrived, hiding Madeleine's body was he, couldn't be bothered to turn up could he'.
They searched all around 5a where Madeleine could have gone, they searched the beach. They went out the following morning to search again. They no doubt expected the police to be there first thing, so they were there waiting for them, they turned up at 10 o'clock. They went to the station.
Now it's all very well people saying they should have searched more, but in reality, they did what they could, and well within what other parents of missing children have done.
After a day or two without finding her, what do you think the chances of them finding her alive would have been? Who wants the parents of a child to find their child dead?
Maybe you think they should have searched peoples homes for her? Well how could they do that? They would have needed the Police to do that sort of thing.
What happened when Gerry was on the beach talking on his phone? Amaral said 'he wasn't looking for crabs that's for sure.' Now I take that as meaning, he was looking for Madeleine. So did he think Gerry had hidden her on the beach? The beach was searched with dogs, but you can see what sort of things were said when the McCann's were innocently photographed.
So if they did everything they could re the searching why have they put money aside as a contingency to enable a search? Or to put it another way, what possible search could they do when the Mets finest have come up completely empty??
Mark Harrison stated in his report that a beach burial was highly unlikely due to many factors at Praia da Luz but that there were many other opportunities around the area which could have allowed for a concealment of a small child.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 19, 2015, 04:54:30 PM
So if they did everything they could re the searching why have they put money aside as a contingency to enable a search? Or to put it another way, what possible search could they do when the Mets finest have come up completely empty??
Mark Harrison stated in his report that a beach burial was highly unlikely due to many factors at Praia da Luz but that there were many other opportunities around the area which could have allowed for a concealment of a small child.
I would imagine the only searching they could carry on with would be from sightings, the same way that Kerry was searching for Ben.
I really don't buy the possibility that the McCann's hid Madeleine's body somewhere where no one could find her, an extensive search of the beach with dogs and helicopters yet nothing.
How would the McCann's know where to hide her, the place wasn't well known to them.
Mark Harrison knew there were places a child could be hidden so no doubt the Portuguese searching the area would know and the police would know, so they were probably searched.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 19, 2015, 05:01:04 PM
I don't believe for one moment that Kate McCann was acting when she ran screaming from 5a to raise the alarm, I don't believe either of them were acting when they were clearly distraught crying.
So, if Madeleine had been found dead, how on earth did Kate McCann manage to hide her body and clear up before the friends arrived at 5a?
Where could she have hidden Madeleine, the police searched 5a.
They had to leave 5a and go and share another apartment, so if as some believe they hid Madeleine's body the following morning, they would have had to go back to 5a and retrieve it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 19, 2015, 05:01:47 PM
In all the time I've been out here I've never seen a wild dog.
It is normal practice here to walk dogs off the lead in many situations, so I have had a run in with a trio of dogs that a German had let run loose.
And in places like farms, the dogs are allowed out without the farm gates being shut.
But I could not find a wild dog if my life depended on it.
PS the mound searched by SY happens to be considered a place to let dogs run off the lead.
MONDAY, JULY 23: I got up at 7.00 and went running. I was surrounded by a pack of dogs (more or less 12) it really wasn't a nice experience. I went to the flat, high part of the cliff as I felt really alone and a little frightened. Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here. Please God, make sure she's alive. Please God, bring her back quickly to us.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 19, 2015, 05:26:40 PM
In all the time I've been out here I've never seen a wild dog.
It is normal practice here to walk dogs off the lead in many situations, so I have had a run in with a trio of dogs that a German had let run loose.
And in places like farms, the dogs are allowed out without the farm gates being shut.
But I could not find a wild dog if my life depended on it.
PS the mound searched by SY happens to be considered a place to let dogs run off the lead.
According to this a pack of the critters was rounded up at some point prior to 2010 - maybe they were still there in 2007? http://portugalresident.com/dog-fouling-in-luz
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 19, 2015, 05:29:27 PM
I don't believe for one moment that Kate McCann was acting when she ran screaming from 5a to raise the alarm, I don't believe either of them were acting when they were clearly distraught crying.
So, if Madeleine had been found dead, how on earth did Kate McCann manage to hide her body and clear up before the friends arrived at 5a?
Where could she have hidden Madeleine, the police searched 5a.
They had to leave 5a and go and share another apartment, so if as some believe they hid Madeleine's body the following morning, they would have had to go back to 5a and retrieve it.
p. 83 Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents. We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona’s apartment . . .
they resumed the search ?????...looking at this again ...they were completley alone ...no press no searchers no police ...so what was they doing ....they could have been doing anything ...like any place could have been a hiding place ...raked through undergrowth ..[what with ] looking in the skip wonder if it had just been emptied [the size they are if it was full how could you know what was in there .....
a lot of people think they could not do anything as they were under the spot light ....but she says her self they were alone ...the search stopped at around 4am...started again at eight ...and she has the nerve to say no one was looking for maddie ....well four hours they had alone ...and on there own...apart from barking dogs ...the area were they was also ..could have already been searched ...[how would they know that it hadn't or could they know that it had ...
its a fact as well anyone saying they would not want to search in case they found maddie dead .....we it speaks for itself were they were looking ....it would have been searching for a live or dead child ....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 19, 2015, 06:28:59 PM
p. 83 Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents. We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona’s apartment . . .
they resumed the search ?????...looking at this again ...they were completley alone ...no press no searchers no police ...so what was they doing ....they could have been doing anything ...like any place could have been a hiding place ...raked through undergrowth ..[what with ] looking in the skip wonder if it had just been emptied [the size they are if it was full how could you know what was in there .....
a lot of people think they could not do anything as they were under the spot light ....but she says her self they were alone ...the search stopped at around 4am...started again at eight ...and she has the nerve to say no one was looking for maddie ....well four hours they had alone ...and on there own...apart from barking dogs ...the area were they was also ..could have already been searched ...[how would they know that it hadn't or could they know that it had ...
its a fact as well anyone saying they would not want to search in case they found maddie dead .....we it speaks for itself were they were looking ....it would have been searching for a live or dead child ....
You say anywhere could have been an hiding place, do you mean for the McCann's to have hidden Madeleine? If so where had they kept her before they went out to hide her in the morning? Or are you saying they were out retrieving her body to hide her somewhere else?
They felt alone, I expect they thought the police would have been back with them at the first sign of light, but they didn't arrive to speak to them until 10 o'clock.
I think they were thinking how things would have been done in Britain, here we leave a liaison officer with the parents someone they can talk to and get reassured by.
After two days they would probably have been looking for a dead child, so no one would have wanted the parents out searching once the police had taken over.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 19, 2015, 06:35:02 PM
I don't believe for one moment that Kate McCann was acting when she ran screaming from 5a to raise the alarm, I don't believe either of them were acting when they were clearly distraught crying.
So, if Madeleine had been found dead, how on earth did Kate McCann manage to hide her body and clear up before the friends arrived at 5a?
Where could she have hidden Madeleine, the police searched 5a.
They had to leave 5a and go and share another apartment, so if as some believe they hid Madeleine's body the following morning, they would have had to go back to 5a and retrieve it.
The time between events independently witnessed is roughly 18:45 (ish) to 22:05 (ish). Like three and a bit hours. leaving two and a bit hours where no independent person can confirm what Drs McCann were doing if the T7 time line is to be believed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 19, 2015, 06:37:58 PM
The time between events independently witnessed is roughly 18:45 (ish) to 22:05 (ish). Like three and a bit hours. leaving two and a bit hours where no independent person can confirm what Drs McCann were doing if the T7 time line is to be believed.
No, I can't believe the McCann's could be chatting and laughing and behaving normally if Madeleine was dead before they went out to dinner.
Everyone said the were behaving normally, Jez Wilkins said Gerry was behaving normally the waiter said they were having a good time.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 06:50:03 PM
I don't believe for one moment that Kate McCann was acting when she ran screaming from 5a to raise the alarm, I don't believe either of them were acting when they were clearly distraught crying.
So, if Madeleine had been found dead, how on earth did Kate McCann manage to hide her body and clear up before the friends arrived at 5a?
Where could she have hidden Madeleine, the police searched 5a.
They had to leave 5a and go and share another apartment, so if as some believe they hid Madeleine's body the following morning, they would have had to go back to 5a and retrieve it.
I don't think they were acting either. They were very emotional. The question isn't were they displaying emotion, the question is was it because they thought their daughter had been abducted, or was it something else?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 19, 2015, 06:54:58 PM
No, I can't believe the McCann's could be chatting and laughing and behaving normally if Madeleine was dead before they went out to dinner.
Everyone said the were behaving normally, Jez Wilkins said Gerry was behaving normally the waiter said they were having a good time.
The issue was how much time there was, that is not changed by beliefs and the time available was about two hours. I respect your belief but even were you next door neighbours to the McCanns it would remain a belief based on what you can see. There are more than enough people about who can successfully hide their feelings and intentions and put up a "normal" front. I am not saying Drs McCann did because there was insufficient/no evidence turned up in the original investigation to support it. I am merely saying it is a possibility.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 19, 2015, 07:00:56 PM
The issue was how much time there was, that is not changed by beliefs and the time available was about two hours. I respect your belief but even were you next door neighbours to the McCanns it would remain a belief based on what you can see. There are more than enough people about who can successfully hide their feelings and intentions and put up a "normal" front. I am not saying Drs McCann did because there was insufficient/no evidence turned up in the original investigation to support it. I am merely saying it is a possibility.
They proved extremely capable of controlling their emotions in subsequent interviews.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 19, 2015, 07:04:25 PM
The issue was how much time there was, that is not changed by beliefs and the time available was about two hours. I respect your belief but even were you next door neighbours to the McCanns it would remain a belief based on what you can see. There are more than enough people about who can successfully hide their feelings and intentions and put up a "normal" front. I am not saying Drs McCann did because there was insufficient/no evidence turned up in the original investigation to support it. I am merely saying it is a possibility.
Then we have the question of motive. If the child died in an accident whilst both parents were present, why would that necessitate a cover up and abduction story?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 19, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
MONDAY, JULY 23: I got up at 7.00 and went running. I was surrounded by a pack of dogs (more or less 12) it really wasn't a nice experience. I went to the flat, high part of the cliff as I felt really alone and a little frightened. Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here. Please God, make sure she's alive. Please God, bring her back quickly to us.
I am aware of this bit.
That's where I got 'attacked' by the 3 'German' dogs.
The photo of Gerry and Kate jogging up the hill, that is toward the prime dog-walking site in Luz.
Pop up towards the hill with your pooches in tow, let them off the lead so they can be frisky, and it's walkers (me) and joggers (Kate) beware!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on November 19, 2015, 09:04:50 PM
Yeah, they were both ecstatic their kid was dead, and just hanging out basking in the celebrity of it all.
Is that what you think?
i don't know what to think.....you think maddie is dead then
i agree with the celebrity bit though alf
think it was also above them to search .....wanted to leave it to everyone else..i mean all they did was left them on there own ,,,they are the victims after all .....as if
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 19, 2015, 10:34:51 PM
Then we have the question of motive. If the child died in an accident whilst both parents were present, why would that necessitate a cover up and abduction story?
The issue was how much time there was, that is not changed by beliefs and the time available was about two hours.
Motive: self preservation and fear of the unknown ?. The reasons for which a lot of decisions are taken by many people.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 19, 2015, 10:42:49 PM
The issue was how much time there was, that is not changed by beliefs and the time available was about two hours.
Motive: self preservation and fear of the unknown ?. The reasons for which a lot of decisions are taken by many people.
Self preservation ie of ones remaining children who might be taken and career and reputation and familal relationships is a very strong motive if they knew they were culpable
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 19, 2015, 10:52:38 PM
Self preservation ie of ones remaining children who might be taken and career and reputation and familal relationships is a very strong motive if they knew they were culpable
none of those things would have happened to the McCanns
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 19, 2015, 10:52:49 PM
That's where I got 'attacked' by the 3 'German' dogs.
The photo of Gerry and Kate jogging up the hill, that is toward the prime dog-walking site in Luz.
Pop up towards the hill with your pooches in tow, let them off the lead so they can be frisky, and it's walkers (me) and joggers (Kate) beware!
Many years ago in my town it was common practice for owners to allow their dogs to run free. Not nearly the road traffic we have now. It was common to encounter packs particularly if there was an in-season bitch on the loose.
**Snip One Portuguese journalist suggested to me that they might have hidden her on a scrubby headland a few minutes' walk away. But as I found when I attempted to go for a run there, at night it is inhabited by feral dogs, whose barking would have made the digging of some putative shallow grave impossible.
i don't know what to think.....you think maddie is dead then
i agree with the celebrity bit though alf
think it was also above them to search .....wanted to leave it to everyone else..i mean all they did was left them on there own ,,,they are the victims after all .....as if
Just as a matter of interest ... can you give the names of which parents of missing children mounted their own searches for their child after the initial searches carried out and before it became necessary to call the police in?
If the Drs McCann are being upheld as pariahs on the allegation they did not search ... I presume they must have behaved in an extraordinary manner.
With whom are you comparing them?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 19, 2015, 11:30:52 PM
The issue was how much time there was, that is not changed by beliefs and the time available was about two hours.
Motive: self preservation and fear of the unknown ?. The reasons for which a lot of decisions are taken by many people.
In which case there must surely be numerous examples of loving, caring parents covering up the accidental death of a beloved child to save their skins - got any?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 12:07:05 AM
In which case there must surely be numerous examples of loving, caring parents covering up the accidental death of a beloved child to save their skins - got any?
Of course not and can't be bothered to Google for any because I am not afflicted with "Normalcy Bias" or "It Can't Happen Here Syndrome" as some on here appear to be. Mug up on that and we can discuss 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 07:37:02 AM
Anyone with any knowledge of how the GMC operates know that the McCcanns would not have been struck off if maddie had died in an accident in the apartment. if it came to light that they had committed perjury and organised a fraudulent fraud...then they would have been struck off... The GMC have a very strong line on dishonestty
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 08:00:43 AM
Of course not and can't be bothered to Google for any because I am not afflicted with "Normalcy Bias" or "It Can't Happen Here Syndrome" as some on here appear to be. Mug up on that and we can discuss 8(0(*
Of course deflection is much easier than actually attempting to substantiate the view that many people have attempted to save their skins by covering up the death of a beloved child -far, far easier.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 08:05:25 AM
Of course not and can't be bothered to Google for any because I am not afflicted with "Normalcy Bias" or "It Can't Happen Here Syndrome" as some on here appear to be. Mug up on that and we can discuss 8(0(*
some of us do not have to google ...we know how unlikely a child is to die in an accident in an apartment such as 5a....we know how the GMC works...we know that the idea the McCanns covered up an accident is ridiculous
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 08:33:14 AM
The issue was how much time there was, that is not changed by beliefs and the time available was about two hours.
Motive: self preservation and fear of the unknown ?. The reasons for which a lot of decisions are taken by many people.
What I don't understand Alice, is, are you saying Madeleine died before the alert? Are you saying Madeleine died before they went for dinner? If so an accident happened the McCann's would have been in the apartment at the time and therefore why cover it up?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 08:38:06 AM
The issue was how much time there was, that is not changed by beliefs and the time available was about two hours.
Motive: self preservation and fear of the unknown ?. The reasons for which a lot of decisions are taken by many people.
So they concocted an abduction story for self preservation. Instead of coming forward if Madeleine had an accident, instead they pretended that a stranger came in and took their child, a stranger who could be a Paedophile who murdered her.
Actually the fate of having an accident and dying in the apartment is a much better fate that being abducted by who knows who for who knows what.
How can you say that saying their child was abducted was better than saying she'd had an accident, which could have been palmed off with them saying she'd had the accident just before they had gone out for dinner, which would only have been an hour or so before Gerry's check?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 08:59:52 AM
What I don't understand Alice, is, are you saying Madeleine died before the alert? Are you saying Madeleine died before they went for dinner? If so an accident happened the McCann's would have been in the apartment at the time and therefore why cover it up?
There are a few possible reasons why people might prefer not to have an autopsy.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 09:23:38 AM
There are a few possible reasons why people might prefer not to have an autopsy.
So they hid the body that could have been found?
Not only that, but they proceeded in going to dinner where they laughed and joked as if everything was fine, knowing that any minute someone could find the body? Really?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 09:41:39 AM
Not only that, but they proceeded in going to dinner where they laughed and joked as if everything was fine, knowing that any minute someone could find the body? Really?
What makes you think the body could be found? Cites for laughing and joking? Kate was allegedly showing concern about an unlocked door, not laughing and joking.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 20, 2015, 10:06:31 AM
What makes you think the body could be found? Cites for laughing and joking? Kate was allegedly showing concern about an unlocked door, not laughing and joking.
If they knew the body could not be found - why would they move it weeks later in the full glare of the world's media?
Cite please for Kate spending the whole evening talking about nothing else except her concern over an unlocked door. That would be just one small conversation followed by many others IMO. Didn't they have a laugh about Jayne going off to 'relieve' Russell?
If Madeleine had died and been removed from the apartment before they went to dinner - then there is no way they would have taken up Matt's offer to check on their children at 9.30 - as he could find that she was missing and that would ruin their plan to raise the alarm and claim that the open window and shutter proved someone had broken into the apartment.
No way IMO could they sit there and eat, chat and drink normally knowing - not only the enormity of what they had just done - but also what was about to happen when they raised the alarm and the police arrived. That's just too fantastical for consideration IMO. The sheer dread and anticipation of what was about to come would be totally nerve-wracking. We are talking about the death of their beloved daughter fgs- not the disappearance of the family hamster.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on November 20, 2015, 10:34:37 AM
If they knew the body could not be found - why would they move it weeks later in the full glare of the world's media?
Cite please for Kate spending the whole evening talking about nothing else except her concern over an unlocked door. That would be just one small conversation followed by many others IMO. Didn't they have a laugh about Jayne going off to 'relieve' Russell?
If Madeleine had died and been removed from the apartment before they went to dinner - then there is no way they would have taken up Matt's offer to check on their children at 9.30 - as he could find that she was missing and that would ruin their plan to raise the alarm and claim that the open window and shutter proved someone had broken into the apartment.
No way IMO could they sit there and eat, chat and drink normally knowing - not only the enormity what they had just done - but also what was about to happen when they raised the alarm and the police arrived. That's just too fantastical for consideration IMO. The sheer dread and anticipation of what was about to come would be totally nerve-wracking. We are talking about the death of their beloved daughter fgs- not the disappearance of the family hamster.
I don't believe the McCanns did it precisely because of the logistics involved. However, of course they could sit there and act normally. It's been done before. Unless you know the McCanns I don't understand how you can make such ascertions? Also regarding Matt they could be hoping that he was the one to discover her missing because it would look more authentic.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 20, 2015, 11:02:24 AM
I don't believe the McCanns did it precisely because of the logistics involved. However, of course they could sit there and act normally. It's been done before. Unless you know the McCanns I don't understand how you can make such ascertions? Also regarding Matt they could be hoping that he was the one to discover her missing because it would look more authentic.
IMO it is utterly unbelievable that both - not just one - but both parents just by sheer coincidence happened to have exemplary acting abilities on a par with oscar winning actors who make a living out of that skill.
In fact so much so that everyone - including family liason officers, counsellors etc etc etc were completely taken in by their brilliant performances day in day out.
Apparently even though Matt's intervention could have completely ruined their plan - it didn't phase them in the slightest - and they just carried on as normal as if nothing untoward had just happened - or was about to happen - if Matt had discovered Madeleine was missing.
Too daft for words IMO.
Anyone who thinks that the McCanns could stroll off to dinner and behave completely normally after what they are alleged to have just done to their own daughter - has no ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes IMO. IOW - no empathy.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 11:09:53 AM
I don't believe the McCanns did it precisely because of the logistics involved. However, of course they could sit there and act normally. It's been done before. Unless you know the McCanns I don't understand how you can make such ascertions? Also regarding Matt they could be hoping that he was the one to discover her missing because it would look more authentic.
You can't convince me that two people can be laughing and enjoying a night out and then become desperate despairing parents as all the friends and others witnessed. Kate and Gerry were complete wrecks, that just can't be switched on like that.
As to Matthew finding Madeleine, that would somehow defeat the point about what another poster said about the McCann's not wanting an autopsy on the body.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 11:13:02 AM
If they knew the body could not be found - why would they move it weeks later in the full glare of the world's media?
Cite please for Kate spending the whole evening talking about nothing else except her concern over an unlocked door. That would be just one small conversation followed by many others IMO. Didn't they have a laugh about Jayne going off to 'relieve' Russell?
If Madeleine had died and been removed from the apartment before they went to dinner - then there is no way they would have taken up Matt's offer to check on their children at 9.30 - as he could find that she was missing and that would ruin their plan to raise the alarm and claim that the open window and shutter proved someone had broken into the apartment.
No way IMO could they sit there and eat, chat and drink normally knowing - not only the enormity what they had just done - but also what was about to happen when they raised the alarm and the police arrived. That's just too fantastical for consideration IMO. The sheer dread and anticipation of what was about to come would be totally nerve-wracking. We are talking about the death of their beloved daughter fgs- not the disappearance of the family hamster.
You state as if it is a fact that a body was moved later. That's not a fact, it's a hypothesis. That's the only reported conversation in which Kate participated. All the rest is your opinion that you know the capabilities of this couple, which you don't. They proved quite good at controlling their emotions during interviews following the events of 3rd May.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 11:14:23 AM
What makes you think the body could be found? Cites for laughing and joking? Kate was allegedly showing concern about an unlocked door, not laughing and joking.
How would they know a hiding place where the body would not be found? They were holidaying there for the week not living there.
Kate mentioned the unlocked door, but that was just a part of a conversation, she ate her dinner and enjoyed her evening up to the point when she discovered Madeleine was missing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 11:15:09 AM
You state as if it is a fact that a body was moved later. That's not a fact, it's a hypothesis. That's the only reported conversation in which Kate participated. All the rest is your opinion that you know the capabilities of this couple, which you don't. They proved quite good at controlling their emotions during interviews following the events of 3rd May.
So are you saying Eddie didn't alert to the car?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 20, 2015, 11:20:09 AM
If they knew the body could not be found - why would they move it weeks later in the full glare of the world's media?
Cite please for Kate spending the whole evening talking about nothing else except her concern over an unlocked door. That would be just one small conversation followed by many others IMO. Didn't they have a laugh about Jayne going off to 'relieve' Russell?
If Madeleine had died and been removed from the apartment before they went to dinner - then there is no way they would have taken up Matt's offer to check on their children at 9.30 - as he could find that she was missing and that would ruin their plan to raise the alarm and claim that the open window and shutter proved someone had broken into the apartment.
No way IMO could they sit there and eat, chat and drink normally knowing - not only the enormity what they had just done - but also what was about to happen when they raised the alarm and the police arrived. That's just too fantastical for consideration IMO. The sheer dread and anticipation of what was about to come would be totally nerve-wracking. We are talking about the death of their beloved daughter fgs- not the disappearance of the family hamster.
The door was unlocked so it wouldn't matter if Matt raised the alarm - somebody could still get inside. An open window only indicates that she didn't leave by herself. Find the man seen going towards the beach with her clone. The McCanns should be promoting that sighting if they want to find their daughter because he knows everything 8(>((
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 11:20:44 AM
You can't convince me that two people can be laughing and enjoying a night out and then become desperate despairing parents as all the friends and others witnessed. Kate and Gerry were complete wrecks, that just can't be switched on like that.
As to Matthew finding Madeleine, that would somehow defeat the point about what another poster said about the McCann's not wanting an autopsy on the body.
You are assuming they were laughing. You are assuming people can't hide their emotions for an hour and a half in order to protect their lifestyle, their good name and their family life? The emotions emerged once the alarm was raised, and we don't know what those emotions actually were. Matthew could have found Madeleine missing is what was said, not he could have found her.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on November 20, 2015, 11:26:50 AM
IMO it is utterly unbelievable that both - not just one - but both parents just by sheer coincidence happened to have exemplary acting abilities on a par with oscar winning actors who make a living out of that skill.
In fact so much so that everyone - including family liason officers, counsellors etc etc etc were completely taken in by their brilliant performances day in day out.
Apparently even though Matt's intervention could have completely ruined their plan - it didn't phase them in the slightest - and they just carried on as normal as if nothing untoward had just happened - or was about to happen - if Matt had discovered Madeleine was missing.
Too daft for words IMO.
Anyone who thinks that the McCanns could stroll off to dinner and behave completely normally after what they are alleged to have just done to their own daughter - has no ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes IMO. IOW - no empathy.
No need to go throwing around allegations saying people who believe this is possible have no empathy! Rather a blanket statement. If the McCanns have no empathy why would this not be possible? And when people need to they can lie/act very well.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on November 20, 2015, 11:41:51 AM
You can't convince me that two people can be laughing and enjoying a night out and then become desperate despairing parents as all the friends and others witnessed. Kate and Gerry were complete wrecks, that just can't be switched on like that.
As to Matthew finding Madeleine, that would somehow defeat the point about what another poster said about the McCann's not wanting an autopsy on the body.
Why not? If you had done something sinister, you could channel that fear of capture into portraying those panicked/fearful emotions. I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent, because I think they are genuine, but see no reason why this wouldn't be possible. Tia Sharpe's step dad and Ian Huntley acted very normal on camera imo or at least as one would expect an innocent person to act - tears or appearance of tears on one hand and a relaxed attitude on the other. Also, in a situation like this would close friends/relatives be the least likely to question you? My imo is they would be.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 12:05:13 PM
How would they know a hiding place where the body would not be found? They were holidaying there for the week not living there.
Kate mentioned the unlocked door, but that was just a part of a conversation, she ate her dinner and enjoyed her evening up to the point when she discovered Madeleine was missing.
How do you know they didn't explore the area thoroughly while jogging? How do you know she ate her dinner and enjoyed her evening? The others said they behaved normally, but we don't know what their normal behaviour was.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 12:13:20 PM
How do you know they didn't explore the area thoroughly while jogging? How do you know she ate her dinner and enjoyed her evening? The others said they behaved normally, but we don't know what their normal behaviour was.
So whilst out jogging they were making notes as to where they would hide their daughters body should she have an accident!!
I know she ate her dinner as the waiter said, there was only one plate which had remnants of food and that was the steak.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 20, 2015, 12:29:48 PM
According to this a pack of the critters was rounded up at some point prior to 2010 - maybe they were still there in 2007? http://portugalresident.com/dog-fouling-in-luz
Thank you for the link, as it contains a small nugget of pure gold.
Re the tale, I am somewhat sceptical. I've no doubt the part about '3 bins, only 1 on the promenade' is correct.
However ...
Every time I have visited the front, either physically or on the webcam, shortly after dawn, there is a cleaning crew in action, collecting rubbish from the promenade and the beach. Including pooh.
There are numerous signs up saying dogs are not permitted on the beach. But my early morning visits (physical) invariably place dog-walkers on the beach, always with the dogs off the leads, typically more than one dog per walker, and typically the dog walkers socialise with each other while their 'pack' romps freely if it wishes.
Throw into the mix the large number of dog sanctuaries on the Algarve, each of which will come and round-up strays upon a single phone call.
So a 'wild' dog 'pack' running on the streets for any length of time is unlikely.
So where is this pooh coming from? As I have said it is normal to walk dogs off the lead here, whether there are people around or not. Those dogs pooh. And in the main, dog owners do not bother to clean up after their dogs.
Combine that with a lack of bins, and pooh would lie around during the day, until early morning the following day, when the cleaning crew would ...
Assuming the McCanns went to the beach in the early morning, they should have seen dog-walkers, cleaning crew, and folks enjoying their early morning constitutional. Personally, I have never made it down there and been the only person.
Maybe the other folks were sleeping-in after a long night searching?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 12:33:06 PM
Of course deflection is much easier than actually attempting to substantiate the view that many people have attempted to save their skins by covering up the death of a beloved child -far, far easier.
It is not deflection of any kind. Your argument to defeat my argument, simply put is "You cannot demonstrate it has happened before therefore it cannot happen" you are not alone in that form of argument on here. It is a manifestly preposterous method of argument. "If it’s beyond what we think can happen/will happen, then we act as though it never can happen". But if it makes you happy and you think you have proved your point by its utilisation then I am happy for you.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 12:37:08 PM
some of us do not have to google ...we know how unlikely a child is to die in an accident in an apartment such as 5a....we know how the GMC works...we know that the idea the McCanns covered up an accident is ridiculous
Another one of the "You can't show it happened before therefore it cannot happen, brigade". Your post is not relevant to what I said. You are merely thumping worn out old tubs.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 12:39:11 PM
So they concocted an abduction story for self preservation. Instead of coming forward if Madeleine had an accident, instead they pretended that a stranger came in and took their child, a stranger who could be a Paedophile who murdered her.
Actually the fate of having an accident and dying in the apartment is a much better fate that being abducted by who knows who for who knows what.
How can you say that saying their child was abducted was better than saying she'd had an accident, which could have been palmed off with them saying she'd had the accident just before they had gone out for dinner, which would only have been an hour or so before Gerry's check?
I didn't say that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 20, 2015, 12:40:19 PM
How do you know they didn't explore the area thoroughly while jogging? How do you know she ate her dinner and enjoyed her evening? The others said they behaved normally, but we don't know what their normal behaviour was.
We don't know how they fitted into the dynamic of the group? Yes, they are now the famous members of the group as far as the world views them, but there are some indications that they were not the centre of the group and may not have been centre of attention. We just don't know how much notice the rest of the group took.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 12:42:02 PM
Why not? If you had done something sinister, you could channel that fear of capture into portraying those panicked/fearful emotions. I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent, because I think they are genuine, but see no reason why this wouldn't be possible. Tia Sharpe's step dad and Ian Huntley acted very normal on camera imo or at least as one would expect an innocent person to act - tears or appearance of tears on one hand and a relaxed attitude on the other. Also, in a situation like this would close friends/relatives be the least likely to question you? My imo is they would be.
I don't think Tia Sharpes step dad behaved normally, he went AWOL didn't he drinking and behaving quite weirdly. When faced with the cameras he could play the concerned step dad couldn't he. The McCann's went from normal behaviour to absolute melt down.
Ian Huntley of course was not the childrens dad.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 20, 2015, 12:50:09 PM
One comment, if you know any retired Police Officers, have a chat with them and you will find out what people are capable of.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 12:50:27 PM
What I don't understand Alice, is, are you saying Madeleine died before the alert? Are you saying Madeleine died before they went for dinner? If so an accident happened the McCann's would have been in the apartment at the time and therefore why cover it up?
What I am saying is there are all sorts of possibilities for a three year old child to vanish into thin air never to be seen or heard of in the following eight years. I can't begin to second guess people's thought processes and motivation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 12:59:55 PM
Indeed! And to a man/woman the guilty parties were always "such lovely neighbours".
Harold Shipman was very well thought of;
The consultants liked him. He got on well with his colleagues. The patients absolutely couldn't ever say a bad thing about him,'' she said. ''They felt calm and comfortable with him and knew that he was looking after them properly. He was always professional, always, and you always felt at ease with him. He'd have a smile with them, a little joke with them, but professional to his fingertips.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10771151/Harold-Shipman-was-a-good-doctor-says-victims-son.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 20, 2015, 01:28:29 PM
Many years ago in my town it was common practice for owners to allow their dogs to run free. Not nearly the road traffic we have now. It was common to encounter packs particularly if there was an in-season bitch on the loose.
**Snip One Portuguese journalist suggested to me that they might have hidden her on a scrubby headland a few minutes' walk away. But as I found when I attempted to go for a run there, at night it is inhabited by feral dogs, whose barking would have made the digging of some putative shallow grave impossible.
This is the same place, just east of Luz and below the hilltop.
That link was very interesting, and has to be the best article I've seen from the Mail.
My objection is that digging a grave here makes a lot of noise, so dogs barking would mask that. But the reporter doesn't know that it is nigh well impossible to dig a grave manually, as SY discovered. Since the site only applies to the McCanns (on foot, not a lot of time), it also has to be rejected on the grounds that the McCanns did not have a digging tool, such as a spade.
As an aside, tourists sit on the front, look at that hill, and comment on how easy it would be to hide a body around Luz. If only they knew the truth.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on November 20, 2015, 01:48:04 PM
I don't think Tia Sharpes step dad behaved normally, he went AWOL didn't he drinking and behaving quite weirdly. When faced with the cameras he could play the concerned step dad couldn't he. The McCann's went from normal behaviour to absolute melt down.
Ian Huntley of course was not the childrens dad.
He behaved how one would expect on camera and the police I believe said on a documentary I saw, he was convincing and wanted to help a bit too much. All the while the dead body is upstairs in their house and he was campaigning to find her, wearing a t-shirt etc..
On a laymen's opinion I think the McCann's tell the truth, because they do seem a bit ill at ease on camera and behave to some people's perception oddly and of course lack emotion. Whatever the case, it isn't what you would necessarily expect and that makes me believe them more, because if they were putting on an act I think it would be more convincing and it appears to me they don't care too much how they look...they are more concerned about their daughter...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 01:53:57 PM
You state as if it is a fact that a body was moved later. That's not a fact, it's a hypothesis. That's the only reported conversation in which Kate participated. All the rest is your opinion that you know the capabilities of this couple, which you don't. They proved quite good at controlling their emotions during interviews following the events of 3rd May.
Do you not think that in the circumstances if Kate had been unusually quiet or serious that evening that one of the Tapas group might conceivably have mentioned this to the police, or do you think they're all in on it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 20, 2015, 01:58:19 PM
No need to go throwing around allegations saying people who believe this is possible have no empathy! Rather a blanket statement. If the McCanns have no empathy why would this not be possible? And when people need to they can lie/act very well.
Despite every angle being covered and every allegation and myth being debunked time and time again, we complete the circle yet again and go over the ground yet again.
The disgusting innuendos being passed around like sweeties by one poster without let or hindrance and certainly without provenance except on fora where it is commonplace to dredge the slurry floating around in what must be the filthiest minds imaginable to throw at the parents of a missing child ... become more revealing as time progresses.
We are discussing ... or supposed to be discussing ... searching.
Or primarily ... why the Drs McCann ... out of all the parents of missing children should have and should be, prowling the streets of Luz - digging up folks' gardens - pushing their way into whatever villas take their fancy to poke around - hiring a JCB to dig up the rocky ground of Luz - stalking residents etc; etc;
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 02:00:31 PM
It is not deflection of any kind. Your argument to defeat my argument, simply put is "You cannot demonstrate it has happened before therefore it cannot happen" you are not alone in that form of argument on here. It is a manifestly preposterous method of argument. "If it’s beyond what we think can happen/will happen, then we act as though it never can happen". But if it makes you happy and you think you have proved your point by its utilisation then I am happy for you.
No, I agree it could possibly happen that loving, caring parents could conceivably cover up the accidental death of a child to save their own skins, however you intimated that such self-preserving cover-ups are not uncommon so all I'm asking is for examples to back up your contention, is that too much to ask?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 20, 2015, 02:04:01 PM
We don't know how they fitted into the dynamic of the group? Yes, they are now the famous members of the group as far as the world views them, but there are some indications that they were not the centre of the group and may not have been centre of attention. We just don't know how much notice the rest of the group took.
There is at least one independent comment that Dr Gerry McCann was the most extrovert (and loudest?) of the group from people who had observed them as a group at table.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 02:04:44 PM
The consultants liked him. He got on well with his colleagues. The patients absolutely couldn't ever say a bad thing about him,'' she said. ''They felt calm and comfortable with him and knew that he was looking after them properly. He was always professional, always, and you always felt at ease with him. He'd have a smile with them, a little joke with them, but professional to his fingertips.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10771151/Harold-Shipman-was-a-good-doctor-says-victims-son.html
Harold Shipman was a murdering psychopath, what point are you trying to make? That the McCanns might share common traits with him?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 20, 2015, 02:26:15 PM
Despite every angle being covered and every allegation and myth being debunked time and time again, we complete the circle yet again and go over the ground yet again.
The disgusting innuendos being passed around like sweeties by one poster without let or hindrance and certainly without provenance except on fora where it is commonplace to dredge the slurry floating around in what must be the filthiest minds imaginable to throw at the parents of a missing child ... become more revealing as time progresses.
We are discussing ... or supposed to be discussing ... searching.
Or primarily ... why the Drs McCann ... out of all the parents of missing children should have and should be, prowling the streets of Luz - digging up folks' gardens - pushing their way into whatever villas take their fancy to poke around - hiring a JCB to dig up the rocky ground of Luz - stalking residents etc; etc;
Yes we know.
Their 'searching' ended with a stroll for about an hour, the following morning of May 4 th 2007.
Whilst many other people had searched through the night and on several successive days afterwards.
Whilst the mccanns were busy elsewhere. 8)-)))
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 02:31:51 PM
Do you not think that in the circumstances if Kate had been unusually quiet or serious that evening that one of the Tapas group might conceivably have mentioned this to the police, or do you think they're all in on it?
To be able to answer your questions I would have to know whether she behaved differently or not. I have no idea; all I know is that she expressed doubt about leaving the door open.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 02:36:34 PM
Harold Shipman was a murdering psychopath, what point are you trying to make? That the McCanns might share common traits with him?
I am saying that people who do bad things don't wear a label saying so. No-one had Shipman down as a murdering psychopath before he was discovered. Assuming that people are good doesn't mean they are.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on November 20, 2015, 02:53:56 PM
I am saying that people who do bad things don't wear a label saying so. No-one had Shipman down as a murdering psychopath before he was discovered. Assuming that people are good doesn't mean they are.
Tell me about it, I have seen the worst excesses by so-called professionals of all sorts whilst serving in the police and that includes, politicians, councillors, doctors, accountants, bank managers and dentists to name but a few. The bottom line is that people don't suddenly become moral simply because they have a degree or letters before their name.
eta. I forgot solicitors, advocates and judges some of whom have been guilty of some terrible abuses.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 02:58:29 PM
No, I agree it could possibly happen that loving, caring parents could conceivably cover up the accidental death of a child to save their own skins, however you intimated that such self-preserving cover-ups are not uncommon so all I'm asking is for examples to back up your contention, is that too much to ask?
You are putting words in my mouth. I said self preservation and fear of the unknown were motives.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 04:11:53 PM
An interesting book for some LBTR. Cold Cases: Evaluation Models with Follow-up Strategies for Investigators ... By James M. Adcock, Sarah L. Stein
paste this in your browser: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4HXOBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=example+of+self+preservation+covering+a+crime&source=bl&ots=lfRzDuWzWF&sig=Rj1qDdCUbTWSc51OTM1SUvmOSAI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX_pSGrZ_JAhWBaxQKHYMNA7UQ6AEIQDAH#v=onepage&q=example%20of%20self%20preservation%20covering%20a%20crime&f=false
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 04:21:08 PM
To be able to answer your questions I would have to know whether she behaved differently or not. I have no idea; all I know is that she expressed doubt about leaving the door open.
We know that no difference in behaviour prior to Madeleine's disappearance was remarked upon by any of the group, or anyone else for that matter.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 04:27:39 PM
The consultants liked him. He got on well with his colleagues. The patients absolutely couldn't ever say a bad thing about him,'' she said. ''They felt calm and comfortable with him and knew that he was looking after them properly. He was always professional, always, and you always felt at ease with him. He'd have a smile with them, a little joke with them, but professional to his fingertips.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10771151/Harold-Shipman-was-a-good-doctor-says-victims-son.html
Shipman had a history of mental illness and drug abuse for which he received a criminal conviction
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 04:28:24 PM
I am saying that people who do bad things don't wear a label saying so. No-one had Shipman down as a murdering psychopath before he was discovered. Assuming that people are good doesn't mean they are.
No, and I'm sure Myra Hindley was a lovely girl too, until she met up with Ian Brady, so I guess that means we're all potential murdering psychopaths, even you.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 04:30:52 PM
Despite every angle being covered and every allegation and myth being debunked time and time again, we complete the circle yet again and go over the ground yet again.
I think one of the biggest myths is that everything has been debunked.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 04:42:31 PM
Despite every angle being covered and every allegation and myth being debunked time and time again, we complete the circle yet again and go over the ground yet again.
The disgusting innuendos being passed around like sweeties by one poster without let or hindrance and certainly without provenance except on fora where it is commonplace to dredge the slurry floating around in what must be the filthiest minds imaginable to throw at the parents of a missing child ... become more revealing as time progresses.
We are discussing ... or supposed to be discussing ... searching.
Or primarily ... why the Drs McCann ... out of all the parents of missing children should have and should be, prowling the streets of Luz - digging up folks' gardens - pushing their way into whatever villas take their fancy to poke around - hiring a JCB to dig up the rocky ground of Luz - stalking residents etc; etc;
What an over-the-top post! The fact remains that the parents didn't search no matter how much people deny or exaggerate or try to explain.
Kate admitted to Jane Hill that she didn't physically search;
it might not be physically searching http://www.mccannfiles.com/id212.html
Gerry admitted to the PJ that he stayed mostly in the apartment;
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Although both 'knew' that Madeleine had been abducted they nevertheless thought it was worth searching the apartment;
he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
So it was worth searching inside but not outside? Not even just in case she had got out? Really?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 04:42:39 PM
What an over-the-top post! The fact remains that the parents didn't search no matter how much people deny or exaggerate or try to explain.
Kate admitted to Jane Hill that she didn't physically search;
it might not be physically searching http://www.mccannfiles.com/id212.html
Gerry admitted to the PJ that he stayed mostly in the apartment;
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Although both 'knew' that Madeleine had been abducted they nevertheless thought it was worth searching the apartment;
he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
So it was worth searching inside but not outside? Not even just in case she had got out? Really?
A perfect example of a myth, debunked countless times, but here we are reset to zero once again.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 20, 2015, 04:47:50 PM
What an over-the-top post! The fact remains that the parents didn't search no matter how much people deny or exaggerate or try to explain.
Kate admitted to Jane Hill that she didn't physically search;
it might not be physically searching http://www.mccannfiles.com/id212.html
Gerry admitted to the PJ that he stayed mostly in the apartment;
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Although both 'knew' that Madeleine had been abducted they nevertheless thought it was worth searching the apartment;
he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
So it was worth searching inside but not outside? Not even just in case she had got out? Really?
Kate did search...you are promoting untruths again
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 04:54:31 PM
Feel free to dispute my post; with cites, of course.
What's the point? You've already admitted that they conducted outdoor searches earlier on this thread, but now you are stating as fact "they didn't search".
The use of Kate's interview to Jane Hill to try and prove your point is disingenuous to say the least. Kate was clearly talking about the searching that was going on at the time of the interview, some days after Madeleine's disappearance and it was not an admission that she had never done any physical searching at all. But you carry on pedalling your half-truths and myths if it brings you deep satisfaction.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 05:01:51 PM
Interview date: 25th May 2007
Quote
Kate McCann: We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back.
Note the use of the present tense "we have...not be(en) physically searching, but we've been working really hard..."etc
Meaning, at the time of the interview, 3 weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, they had not been physically searching, but that is not an admission that they have never searched, no matter that some prefer their own interpretation. Any reasonable person would understand this, unfortunately most sceptics are not very reasonable.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Anna on November 20, 2015, 05:04:43 PM
McCanns walking on the beach photo……. It was photographed 10 days after the disappearance. If they were followed about like this all the time (even on a Sunday) what chance did they ever have of searching. They went jogging early morning the following day 14th for the first time since the disappearance, but still got caught on camera.
And an idea of how big the press crowds were awaiting their every move as shown on the video. http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-kate-and-gerry-mccann-walking-on-a-news-footage/487716052
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 05:06:28 PM
Tell me about it, I have seen the worst excesses by so-called professionals of all sorts whilst serving in the police and that includes, politicians, councillors, doctors, accountants, bank managers and dentists to name but a few. The bottom line is that people don't suddenly become moral simply because they have a degree or letters before their name.
eta. I forgot solicitors, advocates and judges some of whom have been guilty of some terrible abuses.
Absolutely true.....but you will find that people like Shipman have history.....no one has come forward with abad word to say about the McCanns....and of course no criticism at all is allowed re Grime because he is a professional
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 20, 2015, 05:37:25 PM
Absolutely true.....but you will find that people like Shipman have history.....no one has come forward with abad word to say about the McCanns....and of course no criticism at all is allowed re Grime because he is a professional
Now don't get me started, Dave.
You'll land me in trouble ...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 20, 2015, 05:39:26 PM
I think one of the biggest myths is that everything has been debunked.
That Grime fouled up with the dogs has not been debunked ....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 20, 2015, 05:58:37 PM
Shipman wasn't murdering his own family was he?
In the case of the step father of Tia Sharp we don't know how he reacted when he killed Tia, for all we know he could have gone absolutely crazy before he hid her body in the attic. He had had time for composure when he was faced by the cameras. The McCann's behaved exactly how you would expect them to behave when finding their daughter missing. Can anyone who has lost a child even for minutes remember what that feeling was like? Well imagine that only a million times worse. They didn't find their child.
As to the searching which some are STILL bringing up, the McCann's DID search, they searched around 5a, they searched around the surrounding area, Madeleine was not found, they waited for the police.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 20, 2015, 06:21:56 PM
McCanns walking on the beach photo……. It was photographed 10 days after the disappearance. If they were followed about like this all the time (even on a Sunday) what chance did they ever have of searching. They went jogging early morning the following day 14th for the first time since the disappearance, but still got caught on camera.
And an idea of how big the press crowds were awaiting their every move as shown on the video. http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-kate-and-gerry-mccann-walking-on-a-news-footage/487716052
Most certainly some interesting raw footage videos Anna so thanks for posting the link. 8((()*/
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 20, 2015, 07:01:40 PM
Yes thanks they are laughing. Watch in full screen.
I think one of the biggest myths is that everything has been debunked.
I would say that everything of importance...the dogs ...the dna...ringing sky news first...the police manuals...the syringe in the apartment...etc ad nauseam has been debunked...perhaps you could give an example of something that hasn't been debunked
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 20, 2015, 07:29:28 PM
Aerial footage above apartment and wasteland. Bin is there. SAT 5 May 2007
I would say that everything of importance...the dogs ...the dna...ringing sky news first...the police manuals...the syringe in the apartment...etc ad nauseam has been debunked...perhaps you could give an example of something that hasn't been debunked
Madeleine McCann disappeared on 3rd May 2007; no trace of her has been found since;the last independent sighting of her was about 18;30 to 18:45 on the day of her disappearance; relevant Portuguese law enforcement agencies searched for her; the McCann's rang Jon Corner to have the disappearance in UK media early doors (G McCann submission to Leveson Inquiry); the case was archived not knowing what if any crime had been committed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 08:08:18 PM
Madeleine McCann disappeared on 3rd May 2007; no trace of her has been found since;the last independent sighting of her was about 18;30 to 18:45 on the day of her disappearance; relevant Portuguese law enforcement agencies searched for her; the McCann's rang Jon Corner to have the disappearance in UK media early doors (G McCann submission to Leveson Inquiry); the case was archived not knowing what if any crime had been committed.
The post was re myths
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 08:18:08 PM
Nobody saw them searching unless you can provide a cite. Out running, sitting by the pool or going to church doesn't count. They went out together in the dark all alone on 4 May to search or do something else if they are involved.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on November 20, 2015, 08:40:26 PM
I'm afraid the reality of the situation is that only the McCanns themselves know to what extent they searched anywhere. They had access to a car and could go anywhere they wanted. Only they know what they did when they went out.
Curiously, didn't the PJ have a tracking device on Murat's car but not apparently on the McCanns. Can anyone explain this?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 08:40:46 PM
Not counting jogging, playing tennis, walking with cuddle cat, posing for photos, meaningless trips to meet celebrities, managing the fund, and a few other irrelevancies. 8(>((
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 09:01:42 PM
Not counting jogging, playing tennis, walking with cuddle cat, posing for photos, meaningless trips to meet celebrities, managing the fund, and a few other irrelevancies. 8(>((
so it would be true to say that they did serach
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 20, 2015, 09:03:06 PM
I know but looking back through this site there are many posts from supporters that suggest what I have posted is actually mythical. It's good to know that the honcho supporter agrees that the salient points are not mythical.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 09:16:22 PM
I know but looking back through this site there are many posts from supporters that suggest what I have posted is actually mythical. It's good to know that the honcho supporter agrees that the salient points are not mythical.
I know a myth from a miffed
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on November 20, 2015, 09:20:07 PM
Had it been my kid I would be out there every day asking around, putting up posters, making sure the cops were on their toes and garnering further support from the locals but...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 09:21:35 PM
I know but looking back through this site there are many posts from supporters that suggest what I have posted is actually mythical. It's good to know that the honcho supporter agrees that the salient points are not mythical.
can you support your accusation with a couple of the many posts you claim exist that dispute what you posted earlier?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 09:24:35 PM
can you support your accusation with a couple of the many posts you claim exist that dispute what you posted earlier?
Just read back through all the threads until July 2014 ish you will find them. But then it's good to know that honcho II also agrees with salient points of the case.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 09:27:29 PM
Just read back through all the threads until July 2014 ish you will find them. But then it's good to know that honcho II also agrees with salient points of the case.
I think you have just reinvented the wheel
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2015, 09:35:19 PM
Had it been my kid I would be out there every day asking around, putting up posters, making sure the cops were on their toes and garnering further support from the locals but...
what do you think that would have achieved
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on November 20, 2015, 09:53:22 PM
Just read back through all the threads until July 2014 ish you will find them. But then it's good to know that honcho II also agrees with salient points of the case.
so, as I suspected, you are unable to.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 20, 2015, 11:19:09 PM
Unable to, can't be arsed to or it is not necessary to;? take your pick. But if you read through the threads you will find some if you can be arsed 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 20, 2015, 11:22:31 PM
Unable to, can't be arsed to or it is not necessary to;? take your pick. But if you read through the threads you will find some if you can be arsed 8(0(*
I've read plenty of posts on this forum in the last year or more and have never seen any, so can only conclude that you're talking rubbish.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2015, 08:15:37 AM
Had it been my kid I would be out there every day asking around, putting up posters, making sure the cops were on their toes and garnering further support from the locals but...
How would you deal with the scores of reporters/photographers who were being starved of info from the PJ and who were camped on your doorstop waiting for you to emerge - so that they could fire questions at you and take pictures to send back to their editors? You would need a police escort to prevent you from being mobbed by them imo.
How could you garner further support from the locals when you didn't speak the language and were not allowed to discuss the case anyway - as that would be breaking the secrecy laws?
What is it that you could actually do yourself to make sure the cops were 'on their toes' when you were not being told what they were doing in the first place? And wouldn't the PJ be insulted by the inference that it was necessary for someone to make sure they were kept 'on their toes' - as that in itself suggests they were not up to the job imo.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 21, 2015, 09:10:52 AM
How would you deal with the scores of reporters/photographers who were being starved of info from the PJ and who were camped on your doorstop waiting for you to emerge - so that they could fire questions at you and take pictures to send back to their editors? You would need a police escort to prevent you from being mobbed by them imo.
How could you garner further support from the locals when you didn't speak the language and were not allowed to discuss the case anyway - as that would be breaking the secrecy laws?
What is it that you could actually do yourself to make sure the cops were 'on their toes' when you were not being told what they were doing in the first place? And wouldn't the PJ be insulted by the inference that it was necessary for someone to make sure they were kept 'on their toes' - as that in itself suggests they were not up to the job imo.
Ah, IMO yet again.
The mccanns courted publicity, as can be seen from many of the photographs. They enjoyed it.
As to the Police, they were doing their job.
Classic mccann supporter tactic, attack the PJ.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 09:12:44 AM
Had it been my kid I would be out there every day asking around, putting up posters, making sure the cops were on their toes and garnering further support from the locals but...
John, everyone knows what they would do after an event don't they.
It's fine to say you would be out there every day asking around, asking where? who? Could they speak Portuguese? Kerry Needham tried knocking on doors, they shut their doors in her face, frightened no doubt by seeing a frantic woman gabbling in a language they couldn't understand.
It was the job of the police to ask around and do door to door.
As to posters, I seem to remember a photograph of the McCann's with a massive poster on the beach. There were posters in shop windows, everywhere you went according to Raymond Hewlett, who said that is how he knew Madeleine McCann.
As to keeping the police on their toes, how do you expect them to have done that? They had to write a letter asking for information, they didn't get a reply.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2015, 09:28:56 AM
The mccanns courted publicity, as can be seen from many of the photographs. They enjoyed it.
As to the Police, they were doing their job.
Classic mccann supporter tactic, attack the PJ.
Make up your mind Stephen, one minute you are saying the McCann's didn't care enough to search for their daughter, next minute you are saying they courted publicity, by doing the only thing they could do to find Madeleine and that was to put her name out there, keep her in the news keep her face in the newspapers.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 09:59:26 AM
we know the mccanns courted publicity...I wouldn't say they enjoyed it
Ah but Stephen thinks they enjoyed having to keep Madeleine's face in the news, rather than have her with them as part of their family. What a way to think.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 21, 2015, 10:05:15 AM
Ah but Stephen thinks they enjoyed having to keep Madeleine's face in the news, rather than have her with them as part of their family. What a way to think.
Wrong yet again.
I said the mccanns enjoyed and courted publicity.
Do keep up.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 21, 2015, 10:16:37 AM
John, everyone knows what they would do after an event don't they.
It's fine to say you would be out there every day asking around, asking where? who? Could they speak Portuguese? Kerry Needham tried knocking on doors, they shut their doors in her face, frightened no doubt by seeing a frantic woman gabbling in a language they couldn't understand.
It was the job of the police to ask around and do door to door.
As to posters, I seem to remember a photograph of the McCann's with a massive poster on the beach. There were posters in shop windows, everywhere you went according to Raymond Hewlett, who said that is how he knew Madeleine McCann.
As to keeping the police on their toes, how do you expect them to have done that? They had to write a letter asking for information, they didn't get a reply.
They really do look as if they are having the time of their lives, don't they!! (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/dailystar141013h.jpg)
If there is a better way of looking for Madeleine than publicising her and keeping people aware that she is missing, perhaps someone could let us know exactly what it is.
If there is a better way of looking for Madeleine than having the official decision to write her off both here and in Portugal overturned through years of hard work and lobbying, perhaps someone would be kind enough to say what it is.
One would mistakenly have thought that after all the years of opprobrium they have suffered as a result of searching for their child using whatever means they could there would have been some let up when they achieved their aim of having the investigation into her disappearance reopened.
Nowt as queer as folk ... seems appropriate ... it is almost as if there are those out there who share the same aim as the abductor/s. Can't be right surely?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 21, 2015, 10:56:07 AM
They really do look as if they are having the time of their lives, don't they!! (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/dailystar141013h.jpg)
If there is a better way of looking for Madeleine than publicising her and keeping people aware that she is missing, perhaps someone could let us know exactly what it is.
If there is a better way of looking for Madeleine than having the official decision to write her off both here and in Portugal overturned through years of hard work and lobbying, perhaps someone would be kind enough to say what it is.
One would mistakenly have thought that after all the years of opprobrium they have suffered as a result of searching for their child using whatever means they could there would have been some let up when they achieved their aim of having the investigation into her disappearance reopened.
Nowt as queer as folk ... seems appropriate ... it is almost as if there are those out there who share the same aim as the abductor/s. Can't be right surely?
Wow, I never knew that , Madeleine is missing.
'Nowt as queer as folk ... seems appropriate ... it is almost as if there are those out there who share the same aim as the abductor/s. Can't be right surely?'
Out comes the 'abductor'.
Rolled out every time, despite the lack of any evidence to show it happened.
Gloria Hunniford and Fiona Phillips join McCanns at fundraiser to mark '1,000 days of agony' since Maddie vanished
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246595/Kate-Gerry-McCann-host-star-studded-fundraiser-mark-1-000th-day-daughter-Maddie-went-missing.html#ixzz3s7UhemsR Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Now that's what I call searching. £4%4%
Indeed it is searching of the highest calibre ... great you recognise that.
**Snip The McCanns said it sometimes felt wrong that they were coping with life without Madeleine - but added that otherwise there would be no search for the little girl.
In a poignant statement they said: 'Today marks 1,000 days since Madeleine was taken from us. It's hard to even say the number. 'We remember the first few days after Madeleine was taken, watching the clock and counting every hour. Now we've reached 1,000 days. 'It's difficult sometimes to understand how we've been able to keep going and survive without Madeleine, especially since nothing has changed since that terrifying first night.
'Madeleine is still missing. Sometimes it even feels wrong to be coping.
'And yet if we weren't, there would be no search and no campaign to find Madeleine and that just doesn't bear thinking about.'
Of course they courted publicity for their missing daughter!!! It was the only way to keep her in the public eye, where have you seen the McCann's on the tv or in the newspaper where it hasn't had anything to do with Madeleine?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2015, 10:58:08 AM
They really do look as if they are having the time of their lives, don't they!! (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/dailystar141013h.jpg)
If there is a better way of looking for Madeleine than publicising her and keeping people aware that she is missing, perhaps someone could let us know exactly what it is.
If there is a better way of looking for Madeleine than having the official decision to write her off both here and in Portugal overturned through years of hard work and lobbying, perhaps someone would be kind enough to say what it is.
One would mistakenly have thought that after all the years of opprobrium they have suffered as a result of searching for their child using whatever means they could there would have been some let up when they achieved their aim of having the investigation into her disappearance reopened.
Nowt as queer as folk ... seems appropriate ... it is almost as if there are those out there who share the same aim as the abductor/s. Can't be right surely?
8@??)(
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 10:58:46 AM
They really do look as if they are having the time of their lives, don't they!! (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/dailystar141013h.jpg)
If there is a better way of looking for Madeleine than publicising her and keeping people aware that she is missing, perhaps someone could let us know exactly what it is.
If there is a better way of looking for Madeleine than having the official decision to write her off both here and in Portugal overturned through years of hard work and lobbying, perhaps someone would be kind enough to say what it is.
One would mistakenly have thought that after all the years of opprobrium they have suffered as a result of searching for their child using whatever means they could there would have been some let up when they achieved their aim of having the investigation into her disappearance reopened.
Nowt as queer as folk ... seems appropriate ... it is almost as if there are those out there who share the same aim as the abductor/s. Can't be right surely?
Or, conversely, have the same aim as the parents. To obscure exactly what happened on the 3rd of May 2007.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 10:59:56 AM
'Nowt as queer as folk ... seems appropriate ... it is almost as if there are those out there who share the same aim as the abductor/s. Can't be right surely?'
Out comes the 'abductor'.
Rolled out every time, despite the lack of any evidence to show it happened.
Why did you post that picture Stephen, to say the McCann's are not allowed to laugh when a joke is said just the same way that Kerry wasn't allowed to laugh when she laughed at a joke?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 21, 2015, 11:02:18 AM
Why did you post that picture Stephen, to say the McCann's are not allowed to laugh when a joke is said just the same way that Kerry wasn't allowed to laugh when she laughed at a joke?
Well if you or your fellows wish to post photos with the mccanns doing the 'poor me act', expect reciprocation.
Or, conversely, have the same aim as the parents. To obscure exactly what happened on the 3rd of May 2007.
Oh, yes, using every opportunity to put your daughters face in the public eye, to have the public zoom in on the parents, that is really showing that the McCann's are guilty isn't it.
Keeping quiet and letting everything disappear from the public eye on the other hand.....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 11:04:32 AM
You don't know what they were smiling at do you? Could have been a child saying something. I'd be more suspicious if I saw them sobbing walking along the road wanting pity, but they did that mostly in private didn't they.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 21, 2015, 11:07:23 AM
You don't know what they were smiling at do you? Could have been a child saying something. I'd be more suspicious if I saw them sobbing walking along the road wanting pity, but they did that mostly in private didn't they.
How do you know what they did in private ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 11:13:24 AM
Oh, yes, using every opportunity to put your daughters face in the public eye, to have the public zoom in on the parents, that is really showing that the McCann's are guilty isn't it.
Keeping quiet and letting everything disappear from the public eye on the other hand.....
What choice did they have ?
Is it possible that the McCanns knew from the very beginning that having the British on side via the British media ( I believe they regularly excluded Portuguese journalists ) would put pressure on the Portuguese authorities if the focus of the investigation turned on them ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 11:26:15 AM
Is it possible that the McCanns knew from the very beginning that having the British on side via the British media ( I believe they regularly excluded Portuguese journalists ) would put pressure on the Portuguese authorities if the focus of the investigation turned on them ?
What stop the becoming suspects you mean? Stopping the media saying that they had become suspects?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 11:27:46 AM
You don't know what they were smiling at do you? Could have been a child saying something. I'd be more suspicious if I saw them sobbing walking along the road wanting pity, but they did that mostly in private didn't they.
Ah dear cuddlecat. I remember him well ! Clutched to Kate's breast when a photo opportunity required it , yet tossed in a corner for dear Eddie to find when the cameras were off.
Where is he now ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 11:28:15 AM
The mccanns through their PR have ruthlessly exploited the press to their own ends.
This is all about them.
Not Madeleine.
Funny then, how they only spoke about Madeleine in their interviews and how they wanted to find her. Find me an interview where they talk only about themselves Stephen.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 11:29:53 AM
Ah dear cuddlecat. I remember him well ! Clutched to Kate's breast when a photo opportunity required it , yet tossed in a corner for dear Eddie to find when the cameras were off.
Where is he now ?
How do you know it was the McCann's that tossed CC in the corner? It was probably put there for Eddie to sniff, and he did sniff it and played with it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 11:31:05 AM
What stop the becoming suspects you mean? Stopping the media saying that they had become suspects?
Not stopping them becoming suspects but certainly making it harder to pursue a prosecution, the refusal to do a reconstruction being a very clear example.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 11:32:31 AM
Not stopping them becoming suspects but certainly making it harder to pursue a prosecution, the refusal to do a reconstruction being a very clear example.
The McCann's didn't refuse to do a reconstruction though did they? The Portuguese police could have insisted they went back they didn't.
Amaral on the other hand did refuse to do a reconstruction, too many tourists wasn't it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 11:32:54 AM
How do you know it was the McCann's that tossed CC in the corner? It was probably put there for Eddie to sniff, and he did sniff it and played with it.
Of course it was Lace ! 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 11:34:45 AM
You don't know how the room was rearranged do you, could be they said leave everything here, and Kate put CC in the corner, or someone else did. Kate was hardly going to be able to take CC with her as it was on the bed that Madeleine disappeared from.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 11:37:28 AM
The McCann's didn't refuse to do a reconstruction though did they? The Portuguese police could have insisted they went back they didn't.
They made the reconstruction untenable.
Notice that in none of the letters sent by their friends declining to attend the reconstruction were the words ' Our friends Kate and Gerry have begged us to take part in the reconstruction but legally we feel it would not be in our best interest'. Now why was that ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 11:39:48 AM
You don't know how the room was rearranged do you, could be they said leave everything here, and Kate put CC in the corner, or someone else did. Kate was hardly going to be able to take CC with her as it was on the bed that Madeleine disappeared from.
Cuddlecat was in the villa where the McCanns were living at the time of the searches, not in 5a.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 11:44:00 AM
Cuddlecat was in the villa where the McCanns were living at the time of the searches, not in 5a.
I know where that search was carried out, CC had still been on the bed in 5a when Madeleine went missing and so would have been classed as something to be examined by the dogs. I doubt if Kate would have been allowed to take it with her.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 11:48:09 AM
Notice that in none of the letters sent by their friends declining to attend the reconstruction were the words ' Our friends Kate and Gerry have begged us to take part in the reconstruction but legally we feel it would not be in our best interest'. Now why was that ?
They could have used actors for the friends, they would have had the parents there it was the parents they wanted to examine wasn't it?
When the documentary was made in Portugal, the McCann's went and a couple of the friends not all of them, they still managed to do a reconstruction.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 21, 2015, 11:52:07 AM
It's fine to say you would be out there every day asking around, asking where? who? Could they speak Portuguese? Kerry Needham tried knocking on doors, they shut their doors in her face, frightened no doubt by seeing a frantic woman gabbling in a language they couldn't understand.
...
The vast majority of people in Luz speak English. That is the language they used to talk to reception, to the waiters, to the staff in Baptista.
In my house, we speak English. Both of the neighbours joined on to my property speak English. The next one down is Dutch, and we speak in English.
Please don't invent a myth that the standard language in Luz is Portuguese, because it's not, it's English.
Most of the holiday makers who come here want to speak in English. There are Portuguese visitors and Portuguese speakers (ones who cannot speak English) but they are a minority.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 21, 2015, 11:55:51 AM
Funny then, how they only spoke about Madeleine in their interviews and how they wanted to find her. Find me an interview where they talk only about themselves Stephen.
Pray tell me how do you find someone who can't be found, and where clearly all investigations have gone nowhere.
Your propaganda as regards the 'poor mccanns' will never, ever wash with me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 11:56:20 AM
They could have used actors for the friends, they would have had the parents there it was the parents they wanted to examine wasn't it?
When the documentary was made in Portugal, the McCann's went and a couple of the friends not all of them, they still managed to do a reconstruction.
Stick to the point Lace. Why no mention in the letters declining to take part in the reconstruction of the McCanns begging their friends to take part in the reconstruction ? As you yourself have said, the couple managed to persuade their friends to take part in the Emma Loach documentary so why not an official one ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 21, 2015, 12:00:37 PM
You don't know how the room was rearranged do you, could be they said leave everything here, and Kate put CC in the corner, or someone else did. Kate was hardly going to be able to take CC with her as it was on the bed that Madeleine disappeared from.
Usually one of the areas subject to intensive searching and forensic analysis is the crime scene itself.
The last location in which Madeleine was seen was her bed.
What happened to the toy she took to bed with her and on which an abductor may have left a trace ... was it bagged as evidence?
The sheets and bedding on which she lay and on which an abductor may have left a trace ... after initial collection of hair ... were these bagged for evidence?
Advances in scientific techniques helped solve the three decades old murder of Elaine Doyle http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/elaine-doyle-murder-former-soldier-3711592
Nothing like that will ever be possible as far as Madeleine McCann's case is concerned. Even her pink blanket which she took to bed with her became a forum myth and the bedding was taken to the laundry by MW cleaners. Not even the curtains which SY had re-analysed date from the 3rd May.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 21, 2015, 12:04:08 PM
The vast majority of people in Luz speak English. That is the language they used to talk to reception, to the waiters, to the staff in Baptista.
In my house, we speak English. Both of the neighbours joined on to my property speak English. The next one down is Dutch, and we speak in English.
Please don't invent a myth that the standard language in Luz is Portuguese, because it's not, it's English.
Most of the holiday makers who come here want to speak in English. There are Portuguese visitors and Portuguese speakers (ones who cannot speak English) but they are a minority.
It is said Mr Amaral did not speak English.
Perhaps he didn't pay attention at school?
There was a language barrier in Luz when Madeleine went missing ... else why the requirement for translators?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 12:11:07 PM
Usually one of the areas subject to intensive searching and forensic analysis is the crime scene itself.
The last location in which Madeleine was seen was her bed.
What happened to the toy she took to bed with her and on which an abductor may have left a trace ... was it bagged as evidence?
The sheets and bedding on which she lay and on which an abductor may have left a trace ... after initial collection of hair ... were these bagged for evidence?
Advances in scientific techniques helped solve the three decades old murder of Elaine Doyle http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/elaine-doyle-murder-former-soldier-3711592
Nothing like that will ever be possible as far as Madeleine McCann's case is concerned. Even her pink blanket which she took to bed with her became a forum myth and the bedding was taken to the laundry by MW cleaners. Not even the curtains which SY had re-analysed date from the 3rd May.
It's strange that while the McCanns are lauded by supporters for doing everything possible to find Madeleine, they fail to analyse what they didn't do, and as intelligent people, would have known were important, like insisting Cuddlecat was sent for analysis, making sure that the windows and shutters weren't tampered with, that the twins were taken to a hospital and tested for sedatives etc etc.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Admin on November 21, 2015, 12:12:24 PM
There was a language barrier in Luz when Madeleine went missing ... else why the requirement for translators?
Could it be that the police investigators were from another area, an area which was predominantly Portuguese speaking since after all, the country was Portugal?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 12:13:59 PM
There was a language barrier in Luz when Madeleine went missing ... else why the requirement for translators?
Mr Amaral did not live in Luz, so he is irrelevant to the language spoken in Luz.
The GNR and PJ officers drafted in did not live in Luz, so they are irrelevant to Luz.
The statements made are required, legally, to be in Portuguese, hence the first question 'do you speak Portuguese' and if you say no, there is a legal obligation to provide a translator.
The statements by staff etc taken in Portuguese simply tell us which staff were Portuguese. They do not tell us whether these people could or could not speak English, as there was no requirement for English in a Portuguese statement.
That leaves the statements taken from other staff, guests, searchers etc. These required a translator because those people spoke no Portuguese, only English.
The vast bulk of people in Luz speak English. Most can't speak Portuguese. Neighbours struggling with English in Luz is a myth.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 21, 2015, 01:01:31 PM
Could it be that the police investigators were from another area, an area which was predominantly Portuguese speaking since after all, the country was Portugal?
The staff interviews appear to have been conducted in the main by 11 PJ officers drafted in from Lisbon.
I don't think the language barrier arises because of this but rather how much chance they have to converse in English. I would expect the bulk of PJ officers to be involved in Portuguese-speaking cases, and I would expect them to socialise with other Portuguese people. Therefore any English learned would decay through disuse.
GNR officers on the Algarve are somewhat different. The coal face officers have, in my personal experience, been able to hold simple conversations in English, though I will stress the 'simple'. Presumably they get enough cases in English to retain some capability. As soon as they move away from the coal face, I would expect their English to decay through disuse.
That leads us to the 2 chappies responding that night. They were on night patrol in Odiaxere, and the GNR covers the rural areas of Portugal. I believe Lagos has a PSP force, but it doesn't really matter. Outside of Luz, where English is the dominant language, the area is predominantly Portuguese speaking.
The McCanns got 2 chappies more comfortable speaking in Portuguese with a translator on hand. It would have been weird if they had chosen to converse in limited English.
Luz speaks English. The McCann experience of Luz was English. The OC speaks English. The McCann experience of the OC, staff and guests alike was English.
So a search was NOT hampered by an inability to speak Portuguese, NOR is it reasonable to deduce that the McCanns thought it would. They had never hit a Portuguese barrier before.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 21, 2015, 01:08:01 PM
They could have used actors for the friends, they would have had the parents there it was the parents they wanted to examine wasn't it?
When the documentary was made in Portugal, the McCann's went and a couple of the friends not all of them, they still managed to do a reconstruction.
IMO they wanted to check the timings of the T9 and those who came into contact with them, this is not a PR exercise for TV, this is part of the investigation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 21, 2015, 01:30:25 PM
It's strange that while the McCanns are lauded by supporters for doing everything possible to find Madeleine, they fail to analyse what they didn't do, and as intelligent people, would have known were important, like insisting Cuddlecat was sent for analysis, making sure that the windows and shutters weren't tampered with, that the twins were taken to a hospital and tested for sedatives etc etc.
Strange for anyone to expect the McCanns to think and behave like policemen at such a traumatic time - but apparently have no such expectation at all of the police to think and behave like policemen - especially when it came to cordoning off the area and the collection of evidence for forensics.
Shouldn't it have been the PJ who insisted that Cuddlecat was taken away for analysis, also the pink blanket, the bedding etc etc.? Why didn't the police immediately arrange for the twins to be taken to hospital - as whether or not drugs had been used was surely a factor in the case at that time? The McCanns questions to the PJ on that night and then later via their FLO's re the use of drugs appear to have received no response.
The McCanns were not policemen and could not be expected to behave like them. On the other hand the policemen who did attend should have known better as it was their job to do what you suggest and more - and not the distraught parents.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 21, 2015, 01:35:00 PM
I've read plenty of posts on this forum in the last year or more and have never seen any, so can only conclude that you're talking rubbish.
Talking rubbish about "mythical" ? OK you believe it's rubbish. So you must by default think the original post and it's content were true.Which roughly was: Madeleine McCann disappeared on 3rd May 2007; no trace of her has been found since;the last independent sighting of her was about 18;30 to 18:45 on the day of her disappearance; relevant Portuguese law enforcement agencies searched for her; the McCann's rang Jon Corner to have the disappearance in UK media early doors (G McCann submission to Leveson Inquiry); the case was archived not knowing what if any crime had been committed. That fixes an agreed datum lets move forward from there.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2015, 01:41:09 PM
Strange for anyone to expect the McCanns to think and behave like policemen at such a traumatic time - but apparently have no such expectation at all of the police to think and behave like policemen - especially when it came to cordoning off the area and the collection of evidence for forensics.
Shouldn't it have been the PJ who insisted that Cuddlecat was taken away for analysis, also the pink blanket, the bedding etc etc.? Why didn't the police immediately arrange for the twins to be taken to hospital - as whether or not drugs had been used was surely a factor in the case at that time? The McCanns questions to the PJ on that night and then later via their FLO's re the use of drugs appear to have received no response.
The McCanns were not policemen and could not be expected to behave like them. On the other hand the policemen who did attend should have known better as it was their job to do what you suggest and more - and not the distraught parents.
Bang-on right, Benice.
Especially as a certain dog-handler (whose name I am not allowed to mention) expressly said in his rogatory interview that he had requested that the toy be forensically analysed.
He had no knowledge of forensic results.
He wouldn't have.
It was never forensically analysed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Anna on November 21, 2015, 01:52:31 PM
Can we please try to return and adhere to the topic of the thread. Thank you.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2015, 02:05:48 PM
Talking rubbish about "mythical" ? OK you believe it's rubbish. So you must by default think the original post and it's content were true.Which roughly was: Madeleine McCann disappeared on 3rd May 2007; no trace of her has been found since;the last independent sighting of her was about 18;30 to 18:45 on the day of her disappearance; relevant Portuguese law enforcement agencies searched for her; the McCann's rang Jon Corner to have the disappearance in UK media early doors (G McCann submission to Leveson Inquiry); the case was archived not knowing what if any crime had been committed. That fixes an agreed datum lets move forward from there.
OK Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
And we can reasonably infer from the fact that Martin Smith produced an e-fit (after initially refusing) that he changed his mind about the man the Smiths all saw that night being Gerry. There would be no earthly point in producing an efit of a man anyone thought was Gerry.
And in that statement to the Irish gardia police, Mr Smith said that he had canvassed the opinions of his whole family with him that night and that all his children disagreed with him (including his daughter Aoife, whom I took to be the person to produce the second e-fit). But in fact, the second e-fit was produced by his wife, who also must now be convinced that the man is not Gerry.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 21, 2015, 02:10:50 PM
OK Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
And we can reasonably infer from the fact that Martin Smith produced an e-fit (after initially refusing) that he changed his mind about the man the Smiths all saw that night being Gerry. There would be no earthly point in producing an efit of a man anyone thought was Gerry.
And in that statement to the Irish gardia police, Mr Smith said that he had canvassed the opinions of his whole family with him that night and that all his children disagreed with him (including his daughter Aoife, whom I took to be the person to produce the second e-fit). But in fact, the second e-fit was produced by his wife, who also must now be convinced that the man is not Gerry.
Of course, Martin Smith may not have changed his mind but was badgered to produce an e-fit so eventually, produced one as he remembered it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 21, 2015, 02:11:33 PM
OK Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
And we can reasonably infer from the fact that Martin Smith produced an e-fit (after initially refusing) that he changed his mind about the man the Smiths all saw that night being Gerry. There would be no earthly point in producing an efit of a man anyone thought was Gerry.
And in that statement to the Irish gardia police, Mr Smith said that he had canvassed the opinions of his whole family with him that night and that all his children disagreed with him (including his daughter Aoife, whom I took to be the person to produce the second e-fit). But in fact, the second e-fit was produced by his wife, who also must now be convinced that the man is not Gerry.
Slightly off topic still but: Provided we can prove what time the Smith sighting was and there are two independent (to T9) witnesses who can verify Gerry being in the Tapas Bar at exactly that time I'll buy that much of it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 02:15:26 PM
Talking rubbish about "mythical" ? OK you believe it's rubbish. So you must by default think the original post and it's content were true.Which roughly was: Madeleine McCann disappeared on 3rd May 2007; no trace of her has been found since;the last independent sighting of her was about 18;30 to 18:45 on the day of her disappearance; relevant Portuguese law enforcement agencies searched for her; the McCann's rang Jon Corner to have the disappearance in UK media early doors (G McCann submission to Leveson Inquiry); the case was archived not knowing what if any crime had been committed. That fixes an agreed datum lets move forward from there.
After you then...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 02:17:24 PM
Slightly off topic still but: Provided we can prove what time the Smith sighting was and there are two independent (to T9) witnesses who can verify Gerry being in the Tapas Bar at exactly that time I'll buy that much of it.
So, in your view the McCanns' friends testimony cannot be relied on then? Why not, in your view?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
The vast majority of people in Luz speak English. That is the language they used to talk to reception, to the waiters, to the staff in Baptista.
In my house, we speak English. Both of the neighbours joined on to my property speak English. The next one down is Dutch, and we speak in English.
Please don't invent a myth that the standard language in Luz is Portuguese, because it's not, it's English.
Most of the holiday makers who come here want to speak in English. There are Portuguese visitors and Portuguese speakers (ones who cannot speak English) but they are a minority.
I do apologise ShiningInLuz, I was just going by the experience the McCann's had, they had to have interpreters, Robert Murat acted as an interpreter too. I really don't want to start any myth about the language spoken in Portugal.
The fact is it was the job of the Police to question individuals and not the McCann's.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 02:20:11 PM
IMO they wanted to check the timings of the T9 and those who came into contact with them, this is not a PR exercise for TV, this is part of the investigation.
Then why didn't they have the McCann's back? They couldn't get everyone there for a reconstruction anyway could they.
Why didn't Amaral have the reconstruction in the first place if it was so important to the investigation, he said there were too many tourists about.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 02:23:00 PM
Slightly off topic still but: Provided we can prove what time the Smith sighting was and there are two independent (to T9) witnesses who can verify Gerry being in the Tapas Bar at exactly that time I'll buy that much of it.
The independent corroboration of Gerry's whereabouts is (surely) that no one commented on Gerry's absence from the restaurant at the time of Kate's alarm.
Think about it. He is Madeleine's father. You'd have expected his absence to be instantly noticed.
More, you'd expect there to be commentary in the files on efforts to track him down, including where he was when found and who found him.
Absent.
Why?
Surely because Inspector Carlos called it right to say Gerry was in the restaurant ...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2015, 02:24:29 PM
Stick to the point Lace. Why no mention in the letters declining to take part in the reconstruction of the McCanns begging their friends to take part in the reconstruction ? As you yourself have said, the couple managed to persuade their friends to take part in the Emma Loach documentary so why not an official one ?
They had contacted lawyers hadn't they, they must have advised them not to go, they didn't think it would achieve anything.
Russell O'Brian said this in one letter -
From: Russell O'Brien, Sent: 23rd May 2008, To: Prior Stuart, Subject: RE: Re-enactment Dates Dear Stuart, We gather that Rachel has already contacted you saying they won't be returning for any re-enactment. Once again, it seems an academic matter if there is not going to be 100% attendance. Furthermore, we think it is hard to imagine a productive return to Portugal whilst Kate and Gerry remain arguidos. Secondly, the Prosecutor astonishingly referring to them as 'offenders' in their letter implies they are already considered to be guilty, and will be treated as such by the police and press. Furthermore the leaking of the date even before your email completely contradicts the letter's pretence to secrecy for the re-enactment.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2015, 02:27:39 PM
So, in your view the McCanns' friends testimony cannot be relied on then? Why not, in your view?
Well playing devil's avocado were I the IO I would not trust them until they had proved themselves trustworthy as at that point I would not be sure what was going on and the possibility of collusion could not be discounted. You being the IO and wanting to stick your neck out early doors, by saying they are pure as the driven snow, that's your business.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 21, 2015, 04:01:45 PM
Well playing devil's avocado were I the IO I would not trust them until they had proved themselves trustworthy as at that point I would not be sure what was going on and the possibility of collusion could not be discounted. You being the IO and wanting to stick your neck out early doors, by saying they are pure as the driven snow, that's your business.
Pure as the driven snow? I don't recall saying that. In fact all I asked was why, in your view, the McCanns' friends testimony cannot be relied upon, a question which you have failed to answer.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 21, 2015, 04:30:47 PM
So what do you want me to say, seeing as how searching is the subject of this thread?
Well so far you agree that the appropriate Portuguese judicial authorities did search for the child whereas the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters. The McCanns searched too in the strictest of senses but the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters. It seems to me that in the strictest of senses both parties searched but the disagreement as always is of "the mine's bigger than yours" variety. Carry on I am more interested in what The Foxes are doing at present. Catch you rater
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 21, 2015, 04:35:53 PM
The independent corroboration of Gerry's whereabouts is (surely) that no one commented on Gerry's absence from the restaurant at the time of Kate's alarm.
Think about it. He is Madeleine's father. You'd have expected his absence to be instantly noticed.
More, you'd expect there to be commentary in the files on efforts to track him down, including where he was when found and who found him.
Absent.
Why?
Surely because Inspector Carlos called it right to say Gerry was in the restaurant ...
You seem to forget that they have the correct timeline now which is much different. Kate left at 9:51 not 10pm.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 04:41:43 PM
Well so far you agree that the appropriate Portuguese judicial authorities did search for the child whereas the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters. The McCanns searched too in the strictest of senses but the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters. It seems to me that in the strictest of senses both parties searched but the disagreement as always is of "the mine's bigger than yours" variety. Carry on I am more interested in what The Foxes are doing at present. Catch you rater
I agree totally. Not much fun is it...?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2015, 05:04:46 PM
Well so far you agree that the appropriate Portuguese judicial authorities did search for the child whereas the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters. The McCanns searched too in the strictest of senses but the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters. It seems to me that in the strictest of senses both parties searched but the disagreement as always is of "the mine's bigger than yours" variety. Carry on I am more interested in what The Foxes are doing at present. Catch you rater
good to have confirmation from a leading sceptic that the mccanns did search
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 05:38:07 PM
Stick to the point Lace. Why no mention in the letters declining to take part in the reconstruction of the McCanns begging their friends to take part in the reconstruction ? As you yourself have said, the couple managed to persuade their friends to take part in the Emma Loach documentary so why not an official one ?
Why on earth would the McCanns' friends feel it necessary to inform the police that the McCanns had begged them to take part, but despite the begging they had turned them down? There is no logic to your question!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 05:40:34 PM
Ah dear cuddlecat. I remember him well ! Clutched to Kate's breast when a photo opportunity required it , yet tossed in a corner for dear Eddie to find when the cameras were off.
Where is he now ?
This is an example of sheer spite directed at Kate McCann. You some days ago conceded that the McCanns were loving parents who generally cared for their children. How is the callous, cynical behaviour you have described above compatible with this view?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 21, 2015, 05:45:04 PM
Pure as the driven snow? I don't recall saying that. In fact all I asked was why, in your view, the McCanns' friends testimony cannot be relied upon, a question which you have failed to answer.
I thought I had answered. I'll try again. Were it me investigating I would assume to start with there was potential for collusion and would therefore rule out the prospect of testimony by T7 being unbiased and reliable. I would therefore look without the group for corroborative testimony re times and what have you. When/if I received that corroboration I would look on it differently but still keep a weather eye out until I was sure there was nothing hookey about all 7. Were it me sitting by my fireside contemplating the case ditto.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 21, 2015, 05:49:27 PM
I do apologise ShiningInLuz, I was just going by the experience the McCann's had, they had to have interpreters, Robert Murat acted as an interpreter too. I really don't want to start any myth about the language spoken in Portugal.
The fact is it was the job of the Police to question individuals and not the McCann's.
Interpreters made sense, because very quickly the McCanns got out of any depth they could handle, no matter what scenario is plugged in.
Yes I agree, it was the job of the police to do the investigating.
And while I can say that I personally would not have relied on this (i.e. I would have been out there myself 'cos that's the person I am), I will also say that bashing the McCanns over the searching they did or did not do leads to no new revelation. Basically, it tells me nothing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 05:53:43 PM
I thought I had answered. I'll try again. Were it me investigating I would assume to start with there was potential for collusion and would therefore rule out the prospect of testimony by T7 being unbiased and reliable. I would therefore look without the group for corroborative testimony re times and what have you. When/if I received that corroboration I would look on it differently but still keep a weather eye out until I was sure there was nothing hookey about all 7. Were it me sitting by my fireside contemplating the case ditto.
As none of the McCanns' friends was ever made an arguido, I think it's safe to assume that potential collusion had been ruled out by the investigating officers, and that corroborative testimony was taken from the restaurant staff which tallied more or less with their statements regarding the events at dinner that evening, or do you disagree?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 21, 2015, 05:57:41 PM
The independent corroboration of Gerry's whereabouts is (surely) that no one commented on Gerry's absence from the restaurant at the time of Kate's alarm.
Think about it. He is Madeleine's father. You'd have expected his absence to be instantly noticed.
More, you'd expect there to be commentary in the files on efforts to track him down, including where he was when found and who found him.
Absent.
Why?
Surely because Inspector Carlos called it right to say Gerry was in the restaurant ...
The whole thing depends on being able to fix the times accurately. No one appears able to do that. The time the alarm was raised and the time of the Smithman sighting both seem to be movable feasts based on "best informed guess" and little else.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 06:03:06 PM
The whole thing depends on being able to fix the times accurately. No one appears able to do that. The time the alarm was raised and the time of the Smithman sighting both seem to be movable feasts based on "best informed guess" and little else.
According to the Archiving Report the alarm was raised around 10pm, some people choose to interpret around 10pm to be anything from 9.30pm to 10.15pm in order to make their theories work, however in my book around 10pm means 9.55 - 10.05pm - how do you choose to interpret it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 21, 2015, 06:08:53 PM
As none of the McCanns' friends was ever made an arguido, I think it's safe to assume that potential collusion had been ruled out by the investigating officers, and that corroborative testimony was taken from the restaurant staff which tallied more or less with their statements regarding the events at dinner that evening, or do you disagree?
Why would they be made arguido(a)? the case was about a missing child. T7 were not suspects in "the disappearance crime" and would only be made arguido(a) if they were to be charged as such. The Judiciary would have more control leaving them as witnesses if they thought the testimony was dodgy. I don't think the judiciary had formed an opinion other than a reconstitution was necessary to iron out anomalies in testimonies. That never happened so we can all guess away happily.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 21, 2015, 06:12:48 PM
surely Martin Smith said he didn't see the face so how could he produce an e fit
I've seen somewhere (Parliamentary reply?) that the e-fits were produced by 'the Irish family'. That makes it the Smiths.
Otherwise, what we need is 9 folks (the Smiths) meandering past Smithman, none of whom did e-fits
OR
9 of the Smiths unable to produce e-fits, plus 2 more folks who also passed Smithman, who do not appear in the PJ Files, and who WERE able to be contacted, and WERE able to make e-fits.
Christmas is coming. I have it on 1st hand evidence that departure from Luton airport started in clear conditions but the take-off was in heavy snow. Does this evidence mean I should expect a visit from Santa this year?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 06:31:47 PM
Why would they be made arguido(a)? the case was about a missing child. T7 were not suspects in "the disappearance crime" and would only be made arguido(a) if they were to be charged as such. The Judiciary would have more control leaving them as witnesses if they thought the testimony was dodgy. I don't think the judiciary had formed an opinion other than a reconstitution was necessary to iron out anomalies in testimonies. That never happened so we can all guess away happily.
So - collusion to cover up a crime is not a criminal offence in Portugal then?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 21, 2015, 06:38:10 PM
According to the Archiving Report the alarm was raised around 10pm, some people choose to interpret around 10pm to be anything from 9.30pm to 10.15pm in order to make their theories work, however in my book around 10pm means 9.55 - 10.05pm - how do you choose to interpret it?
You find out who actually knew the time first not what anyone was told. Witnesses who looked at their watch or a clock. Without is guesswork.
Timeline is crucial in Lafon murder investigation North Las Vegas police say they are re-evaluating the timeline in the Andrea Lafon murder case. New details were revealed at a news conference that raise questions about what happened that night and who was involved.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 21, 2015, 06:45:35 PM
So - collusion to cover up a crime is not a criminal offence in Portugal then?
Did I say it wasn't? You haven't been following all the posts by ferryman and Carana about how, when, why, and where the judiciary would impose arguido(a) status on someone. Only if they think they have enough evidence to bring a charge if they wish to.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 06:49:23 PM
Did I say it wasn't? You haven't been following all the posts by ferryman and Carana about how, when, why, and where the judiciary would impose arguido(a) status on someone. Only if they think they have enough evidence to bring a charge if they wish to.
So why did you ask "why would they be made arguido(a) then, in response to the following if you concede that collusion up cover up a crime is an offence in Portugal?
As none of the McCanns' friends was ever made an arguido, I think it's safe to assume that potential collusion had been ruled out by the investigating officers, and that corroborative testimony was taken from the restaurant staff which tallied more or less with their statements regarding the events at dinner that evening
Which bit of the above do you actually disagree with, if anything?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 06:52:03 PM
Question - who from the Tapas group apart from the McCanns did a check on the McCann children that night and why were they not made arguido? Did they not have an opportunity to 'do away' with the child also? What evidence was there that ruled them out of such a scenario?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2015, 06:53:10 PM
According to the Archiving Report the alarm was raised around 10pm, some people choose to interpret around 10pm to be anything from 9.30pm to 10.15pm in order to make their theories work, however in my book around 10pm means 9.55 - 10.05pm - how do you choose to interpret it?
Sorry mods wandering off topic here! bin it if you like!
The report says around 22:00?. I wouldn't try to second guess the accuracy they implied with "around" until I had read what they had read by way of testimony. The statements of those involved seem to give a "start time" as early as 21:45 and "finish time" as late as 22:00 for the alarm being raised. Of course you can play interpolating games if you wish with times in other statements and how long does it take to have a pee or eat a piece of steak to shave a few seconds off here or add a minute on there if you wish. I am happy with 21:45 to 22:00. Then we have the Smith's statement to fix a time on. Mr Smith seems to think they left Kelly's bar 21:50 to 22:00 So a potential sighting time can reasonably assessed and it's span. Then do a little plan based on Earliest Start/Earliest Finish. Latest Start/Latest Finish. Earliest Start/Latest Finish for both events and see what pans out.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 07:15:13 PM
Sorry mods wandering off topic here! bin it if you like!
The report says around 22:00?. I wouldn't try to second guess the accuracy they implied with "around" until I had read what they had read by way of testimony. The statements of those involved seem to give a "start time" as early as 21:45 and "finish time" as late as 22:00 for the alarm being raised. Of course you can play interpolating games if you wish with times in other statements and how long does it take to have a pee or eat a piece of steak to shave a few seconds off here or add a minute on there if you wish. I am happy with 21:45 to 22:00. Then we have the Smith's statement to fix a time on. Mr Smith seems to think they left Kelly's bar 21:50 to 22:00 So a potential sighting time can reasonably assessed and it's span. Then do a little plan based on Earliest Start/Earliest Finish. Latest Start/Latest Finish. Earliest Start/Latest Finish for both events and see what pans out.
Actually, Gerry gives the time of the alarm being raised at 10.13 - ask Faithlilly - so if you're going to accept the possibility that any one of those time estimates is correct, then you should really include his timing too, shouldn't you? So now "around 10pm" gives you a 30 minute time span thus allowing for all manner of skulduggery to take place in whatever manner it suits you to imagine it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 21, 2015, 07:18:21 PM
Actually, Gerry gives the time of the alarm being raised at 10.13 - ask Faithlilly - so if you're going to accept the possibility that any one of those time estimates is correct, then you should really include his timing too, shouldn't you? So now "around 10pm" gives you a 30 minute time span thus allowing for all manner of skulduggery to take place in whatever manner it suits you to imagine it.
I am not imagining any skulduggery. I am trying to fix timing within limits as demonstrated by witness statements. Then by established practices calculate maximum and minimum time spans. Then account for where all the protagonists were in those time spans as stated by themselves and others. Having done that sit down and analyse to see what drops out.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 07:59:05 PM
I am not imagining any skulduggery. I am trying to fix timing within limits as demonstrated by witness statements. Then by established practices calculate maximum and minimum time spans. Then account for where all the protagonists were in those time spans as stated by themselves and others. Having done that sit down and analyse to see what drops out.
Ooh, get you! Do let us know what drops out after you've had a sit down, hope it's not too painful though!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 21, 2015, 07:59:51 PM
Psst Alfie ! Don't you think it's about time you changed your siggie ? I know not removing the moderated version was a bit of a face-saving exercise but it's all looking a little silly now.
Just a thought !
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 21, 2015, 11:05:27 PM
Psst Alfie ! Don't you think it's about time you changed your siggie ? I know not removing the moderated version was a bit of a face-saving exercise but it's all looking a little silly now.
Just a thought !
don't you think it's time you changed yours? Seeing as how when you click on the link it says "campaign not found"? @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2015, 11:22:45 PM
Indeed Alfie. An oversight. Thanks for reminding me ?{)(**
The big oversight in several cases (before and after the PDL case) was assuming the centre of the search area had been fully searched and so not bothering to fully search it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 22, 2015, 01:35:28 AM
No in this case and every case is presuming people tell you the truth because they don't. Believing is for suckers. Truth is for seekers.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 22, 2015, 06:41:50 AM
As none of the McCanns' friends was ever made an arguido, I think it's safe to assume that potential collusion had been ruled out by the investigating officers, and that corroborative testimony was taken from the restaurant staff which tallied more or less with their statements regarding the events at dinner that evening, or do you disagree?
Personally, I am seeing very little from the Tapas staff that supports the events of the week/night, to the extent that it makes me wonder what the Tapas staff were up to. I did a comparison with the Millennium staff, and concluded that the Millennium staff seem to have more idea about the child minding arrangements than the Tapas staff.
I chalked this one off to the Tapas staff mainly keeping out of the firing line.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2015, 08:28:43 AM
The whole point is knowing who is telling the truth.....it seems SY accept the McCanns are telling the truth
Yet they changed their stories, and there is nothing to back it up, with any evidence to support abduction, that can't be explained by other scenarios.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2015, 08:40:29 AM
Yet they changed their stories, and there is nothing to back it up, with any evidence to support abduction, that can't be explained by other scenarios.
Not suspects according to SY so despite everything you say Sy believe them...that's important..the fact that you don't is not important
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 22, 2015, 08:45:07 AM
you still haven't caught on...they do not have to know what crime was committed to rule out the parents...justa s the Needhams are not suspects
I caught on from the start.
SY never investigated the mccanns.
and you do need to know the crime.
Try to remember, THE MCCANNS CHANGED THEIR STORIES.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 22, 2015, 10:09:49 AM
Gerry searched the apartment block with Rachael;
I was kind of talk to Gerry and then every now and then I'd go back and check on Grace, erm at one point, probably not that long after, maybe about ten thirty or something, Gerry and I looked at, up at the stairwell and kind of across all the floors of the block that we were in, erm and that was really the, that was all the searching that I really did, just up the stairs,.....
1578 'And how long did you spend doing that search'' Reply 'It was just really a quick you know, it would have been about five minutes, it was just up the flights and along the, you know the sort of verandas in front of the apartments, erm but there wasn't really anywhere you know, somebody could hide, well you know, if Madeleine had sort of wandered by herself, erm you know there were just really open corridors that we were just kind of looking to see if there was anything down there, erm'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2015, 10:21:34 AM
I was kind of talk to Gerry and then every now and then I'd go back and check on Grace, erm at one point, probably not that long after, maybe about ten thirty or something, Gerry and I looked at, up at the stairwell and kind of across all the floors of the block that we were in, erm and that was really the, that was all the searching that I really did, just up the stairs,.....
1578 'And how long did you spend doing that search'' Reply 'It was just really a quick you know, it would have been about five minutes, it was just up the flights and along the, you know the sort of verandas in front of the apartments, erm but there wasn't really anywhere you know, somebody could hide, well you know, if Madeleine had sort of wandered by herself, erm you know there were just really open corridors that we were just kind of looking to see if there was anything down there, erm'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
so you now accept that the mccanns searched
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 22, 2015, 10:24:15 AM
Or they knew what had happened to her but were too traumatised by her death to put on any kind of performance?
So when Kate McCann came screaming down from apartment 5a to tell Gerry and friends Madeleine was missing, she was putting on an act, because she knew that Madeleine was dead, so if she was not acting and she had found Madeleine dead, how did she have the time to clean up and hide the body, and where did she hide it.
If you are saying that Madeleine was dead before the alert then how did they put on their Oscar winning performance when Kate found her missing?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 22, 2015, 12:04:37 PM
This is the 3rd time I have asked the question - will I get a response now, I wonder....
What do "sceptics" infer from this perceived lack of searching on the part of the McCanns?
- that they didn't like Madeleine that much and so weren't that bothered about looking for her?
- that they knew there was no point looking for her, but at the same time were too lazy and stupid to put on a convincing act?
Very good,but badly worded, question Alf. Why ask the 'sceptics' the answer is in the McCANN CAMP dear.
Let's have a look see.
McCanns didn't search because they knew she was long gone? The reason for this would be the now infamous time lines have had a pedant investigation.
Who was the last person in the tapas group (not the parents) to claim to have seen Maddie alive? very early evening- what time was Maddie noted as missing- late evening. So a few good hours window of opportunity.
Who are the witnesses who will cover a tighter time line within the group? (little window of opportunity- cluck cluck- according to Kate)
1. JT saw the abductor but could not identify him or Maddie, and two other people in the same street didn't see her or the abductor! Hmm. 2. DP said he saw little angels(three children) all happy with their mother- but can't recall why he was there- but was sure Gerry sent him to check. He also can't recall what Kate was wearing or if he was inside or outside the flat.
BUT apart from all that, why would they search (places where she might have wandered off) if they knew she was abducted - Kate knew right away! (remember the whooshing and jemmied shutters story)? Who can forget that elephant in the room.
Or, did they believe/know their daughter had wandered off and came to harm/was lifted off the street by a concerned citizen/paedophile? They did leave a door unlocked in case Maddie woke and wandered? They didn't seem to want to admit to that for some reason. Hence we have a various list of 'entries for swathy abductors':
window in and out some one had access to keys to the flat it may have been an ocean worker
add your own version here but NOT woke and wandered because McCANNS know That didn't happen and they know because...?
I hope this has unconfused you Alf, because it certainly doesn't come across as clear cut to me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 22, 2015, 01:51:08 PM
Actually all your post amptly demonstrates, is that you are more concerned about defending the mccanns and not searching for Madeleine.
So you would do exactly what the McCann's did and their friends, then of course it would important to call the police and wait for them wouldn't it.
When some people such as you say the McCann's didn't love their child enough to search I will defend them as I would any other parent of a child that has gone missing and the parents searched or didn't search. April Jones mother didn't search does that mean she wasn't a loving mother? You are pointing a finger at these parents and accusing them yet you can't back anything you say up.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 22, 2015, 02:30:13 PM
Very good,but badly worded, question Alf. Why ask the 'sceptics' the answer is in the McCANN CAMP dear.
Let's have a look see.
McCanns didn't search because they knew she was long gone? The reason for this would be the now infamous time lines have had a pedant investigation.
Who was the last person in the tapas group (not the parents) to claim to have seen Maddie alive? very early evening- what time was Maddie noted as missing- late evening. So a few good hours window of opportunity.
Who are the witnesses who will cover a tighter time line within the group? (little window of opportunity- cluck cluck- according to Kate)
1. JT saw the abductor but could not identify him or Maddie, and two other people in the same street didn't see her or the abductor! Hmm. 2. DP said he saw little angels(three children) all happy with their mother- but can't recall why he was there- but was sure Gerry sent him to check. He also can't recall what Kate was wearing or if he was inside or outside the flat.
BUT apart from all that, why would they search (places where she might have wandered off) if they knew she was abducted - Kate knew right away! (remember the whooshing and jemmied shutters story)? Who can forget that elephant in the room.
Or, did they believe/know their daughter had wandered off and came to harm/was lifted off the street by a concerned citizen/paedophile? They did leave a door unlocked in case Maddie woke and wandered? They didn't seem to want to admit to that for some reason. Hence we have a various list of 'entries for swathy abductors':
window in and out some one had access to keys to the flat it may have been an ocean worker
add your own version here but NOT woke and wandered because McCANNS know That didn't happen and they know because...?
I hope this has unconfused you Alf, because it certainly doesn't come across as clear cut to me.
The McCann's didn't think Madeleine had wandered because they didn't think a child of almost four would close doors and gates behind them which I do agree with.
That didn't stop them searching for her just in case she had wandered.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 22, 2015, 02:56:49 PM
So when Kate McCann came screaming down from apartment 5a to tell Gerry and friends Madeleine was missing, she was putting on an act, because she knew that Madeleine was dead, so if she was not acting and she had found Madeleine dead, how did she have the time to clean up and hide the body, and where did she hide it.
If you are saying that Madeleine was dead before the alert then how did they put on their Oscar winning performance when Kate found her missing?
Hardly Oscar winning as several of the policemen who were first on the scene commented on the oddness of the couple's behaviour in the circumstances. Further there are several scenarios, including the one I favour, where no clean up would be needed and a very simple disposal of the body.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 22, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
This is the 3rd time I have asked the question - will I get a response now, I wonder....
What do "sceptics" infer from this perceived lack of searching on the part of the McCanns?
- that they didn't like Madeleine that much and so weren't that bothered about looking for her?
- that they knew there was no point looking for her, but at the same time were too lazy and stupid to put on a convincing act?
May be you should try again with more/better options next time? I don't believe either of them to be true. Your question is now basically Donald as far as I am concerned. "Leaving it to the police because they thought it was the job of the police" probably fits the bill but you have seen fit not to offer up realistic options.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 22, 2015, 03:42:44 PM
Hardly Oscar winning as several of the policemen who were first on the scene commented on the oddness of the couple's behaviour in the circumstances. Further there are several scenarios, including the one I favour, where no clean up would be needed and a very simple disposal of the body.
They found the parents odd because Gerry threw himself down onto his knees with despair and they were praying and crying in their bedroom. Also I noticed the statement was made in October, after Amaral had given his theory.
I would read what the crisis councillor said on the 5th of May Faithlilly, this is from an expert in someone who knows what he is talking about. His statement was taken over a day after the event and they were still traumatised, how can you act for so long?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 03:44:53 PM
May be you should try again with more/better options next time? I don't believe either of them to be true. Your question is now basically Donald as far as I am concerned. "Leaving it to the police because they thought it was the job of the police" probably fits the bill but you have seen fit not to offer up realistic options.
I didn"t offer that option to the "sceptics" because clearly it's far too obvious and sensible for any of them to choose it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 22, 2015, 03:50:55 PM
We know there were periods of frantic activity and periods of all-encompassing despair, the couple and their immediate family have told us as much.
But you cannot countenance the notion that their all-encompassing despair was owing to the fact that their child had vanished in the night, believed by them to have been taken from her bed. Oh no, that's simply not believable is it Faithlilly?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 04:14:26 PM
So, according to Faithlilly the McCanns were too traumatised to make a pretence of looking for their daughter, but not so traumatised that they could appear perfectly normal at dinner and to Jez Wilkins, hide her body so well it has never been found to this day and concoct a fake abduction story so convincing that the Met have stated that the disappearance has all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction.
Now that seems highly plausible doesn't it...? &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 22, 2015, 04:15:28 PM
But you cannot countenance the notion that their all-encompassing despair was owing to the fact that their child had vanished in the night, believed by them to have been taken from her bed. Oh no, that's simply not believable is it Faithlilly?
It's not what I can countenance Alfie but what the evidence suggests.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 04:17:04 PM
So, according to Faithlilly the McCanns were too traumatised to make a pretence of looking for their daughter, but not so traumatised that they could appear perfectly normal at dinner and to Jez Wilkins, hide her body so well it has never been found to this day and concoct a fake abduction story so convincing that the Met have stated that the disappearance has all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction.
Now that seems highly plausible doesn't it...? &%+((£
If my scenario is so implausible why are you here trying to knock holes it it ? Why not just leave people to see for themselves how ludicrous it is ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 22, 2015, 04:21:25 PM
If my scenario is so implausible why are you here trying to knock holes it it ? Why not just leave people to see for themselves how ludicrous it is ?
Is that a plea for me not to keep showing up your theories for the nonsense they are? Sorry, but all the while you spout your offensive claptrap I will respond to it with the ridicule it deserves @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 04:24:54 PM
Is that a plea for me not to keep showing up your theories for the nonsense they are? Sorry, but all the while you spout your offensive claptrap I will respond to it with the ridicule it deserves @)(++(*
But why ? There is offensive claptrap spouted all over the web so why particularly here and why when you never cease to remind us how self-evident the McCanns innocence is ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2015, 05:23:25 PM
But why ? There is offensive claptrap spouted all over the web so why particularly here and why when you never cease to remind us how self-evident the McCanns innocence is ?
Because on the other forums defence of the McCanns is not allowed
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 22, 2015, 05:24:51 PM
But why ? There is offensive claptrap spouted all over the web so why particularly here and why when you never cease to remind us how self-evident the McCanns innocence is ?
Why not? If you didn't want your views challenged you wouldn't post here, there are as you point out, numerous place where it is safe for you to post your offensive claptrap and to be applauded by your compatriots for doing so.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 22, 2015, 05:36:34 PM
Why not? If you didn't want your views challenged you wouldn't post here, there are as you point out, numerous place where it is safe for you to post your offensive claptrap and to be applauded by your compatriots for doing so.
I don't have a problem with having my posts challenged I just think it's a rather strange way to spend your time, defending a couple you claim are very clearly innocent. If my 'coaptrap' is self-evident why do you even bother challenging it ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 22, 2015, 05:53:19 PM
So you would do exactly what the McCann's did and their friends, then of course it would important to call the police and wait for them wouldn't it.
When some people such as you say the McCann's didn't love their child enough to search I will defend them as I would any other parent of a child that has gone missing and the parents searched or didn't search. April Jones mother didn't search does that mean she wasn't a loving mother? You are pointing a finger at these parents and accusing them yet you can't back anything you say up.
All you're giving is excuses.
Quite pathetic.
They had time to jog, play tennis, set up a fund, etc., etc., etc.
The other families weren't doing that, WERE THEY.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 22, 2015, 05:55:44 PM
I don't have a problem with having my posts challenged I just think it's a rather strange way to spend your time, defending a couple you claim are very clearly innocent. If my 'coaptrap' is self-evident why do you even bother challenging it ?
So, I 'm strange for challenging your posts, but you're not strange for making them in the first place, is that what you think?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 22, 2015, 06:44:10 PM
So according to your logic Sir Arthur Conan Doyle must also have had a problem with doctors.......oh except he was one !
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote on a lot of subjects, many tens of thousands of words not all exclusively about criminal doctors, and in this case he was writing about a murderous physician, so what particularly attracted you to the quote you have chosen, out of interest?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 22, 2015, 07:32:56 PM
They had time to jog, play tennis, set up a fund, etc., etc., etc.
The other families weren't doing that, WERE THEY.
I don't know how the other families coped with their anxiety Stephen maybe they were drugged up to the eye balls. As for the fund you KNOW why they set up a fund.
Here you are Stephen, read this and maybe you will learn something -
I don't know how the other families coped with their anxiety Stephen maybe they were drugged up to the eye balls. As for the fund you KNOW why they set up a fund.
Here you are Stephen, read this and maybe you will learn something -
I am not in the slightest bit interested in your attempt at pro McCann propaganda Lace.
The McCann's behaviour was odd from very early on.
As to the 'fund', it was set up for their prime benefit, of which a small percentage was used for 'searching'.
Yours and other attempts to make comparisons with other cases doesn't wash.
So as well as knowing better than SY, the Coroner at BLs inquest, and the legal teams employed by newspapers, you also know better than the Trauma Counsellors and FLO's who spent hours with the McCanns and who didn't find anything odd in their behaviour at all.
Quote from the AG's Final Report
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from theFSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine. End quote.
But no doubt you know better than the Portuguese Attorney General as well.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 22, 2015, 08:06:48 PM
So as well as knowing better than SY, the Coroner at BLs inquest, and the legal teams employed by newspapers, you also know better than the Trauma Counsellors and FLO's who spent hours with the McCanns and who didn't find anything odd in their behaviour at all.
Quote from the AG's Final Report
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from theFSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine. End quote.
But no doubt you know better than the Portuguese Attorney General as well.
Did that normal behaviour include prostrating themselves in front of the local police, when instead they should have been out searching for their beloved daughter ?
They were happy for others to search for them, and the bull in the book kate mccann 'WROTE' about them searching alone the following morning RINGS HOLLOW now, just as it did in the book.
They callously and repeatedly left their children unprotected, to socialize with their friends.
The case was archived, since no evidence of note was found to implicate anyone.
The crime remains unknown.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 22, 2015, 08:19:05 PM
Did that normal behaviour include prostrating themselves in front of the local police, when instead they should have been out searching for their beloved daughter ?
They were happy for others to search for them, and the bull in the book kate mccann 'WROTE' about them searching alone the following morning RINGS HOLLOW now, just as it did in the book.
They callously and repeatedly left their children unprotected, to socialize with their friends.
The case was archived, since no evidence of note was found to implicate anyone.
The crime remains unknown.
It's not unusual for people suffering deep shock to buckle at the knees and collapse to the floor. I watched a film today when a mother's knees gave way and she collapsed to the floor when hearing of her son's death,
May I remind you:-
April Jones parents did NOT search for their missing child. Not a single word of criticism from sceptics..
Sandy Davidson's mother did NOT search for her missing child. Not a single word of criticism from sceptics
Madeleine's parents DID search for their missing child. 8 Years of unrelenting criticism from sceptics.
What sort of warped logic is that when it's at home? Too daft for words IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 22, 2015, 08:30:23 PM
I find tampering with the crime scene (window/shutter) too daft for words. The police would naturally be suspicious when no evidence exists of anybody passing though it. And not one friend statement confirms it being open or shutter raised. Their family and friends are then shouting to the press within hours that it was forced entry. They had a source.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 22, 2015, 08:37:28 PM
It's not unusual for people suffering deep shock to buckle at the knees and collapse to the floor. I watched a film today when a mother's knees gave way and she collapsed to the floor when hearing of her son's death,
May I remind you:-
April Jones parents did NOT search for their missing child. Not a single word of criticism from sceptics..
Sandy Davidson's mother did NOT search for her missing child. Not a single word of criticism from sceptics
Madeleine's parents DID search for their missing child. 8 Years of unrelenting criticism from sceptics.
What sort of warped logic is that when it's at home? Too daft for words IMO.
I should bloody well think they were in shock.
Their callous actions led to the disappearance of their daughter.
Can you point to where either of the other families behaviour compares to what the mccanns did, over those 5 nights along with other members of their group.
Were these other families out drinking and eating, and leaving their children unprotected ?
You can badger on about abduction, but there is no evidence that can be shown for that which can't be explained by other possibilities.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 22, 2015, 09:02:35 PM
Their callous actions led to the disappearance of their daughter.
Can you point to where either of the other families behaviour compares to what the mccanns did, over those 5 nights along with other members of their group.
Were these other families out drinking and eating, and leaving their children unprotected ?
You can badger on about abduction, but there is no evidence that can be shown for that which can't be explained by other possibilities.
It's only your opinion that their actions were callous, and of course you are entitled to it - just as those who don't find it callous at all are entitled to theirs.
Coral Jones said that letting her child play outside was something she had done hundreds of times before.
The difference between the three families is that in two cases the parents/grandparents were inside (whether they were eating or drinking we don't know) - and their children were outside the house - but in Madeleine's case she was inside fast asleep in bed while her parents were outside.
IMO it would be that last scenario which I would have assumed to be the safest place to be (i.e. inside) - when it came to the possiblity of an approach by a stranger(s) with evil intent in mind.
Obviously it goes without saying that you will disagree.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2015, 09:03:26 PM
Their callous actions led to the disappearance of their daughter.
Can you point to where either of the other families behaviour compares to what the mccanns did, over those 5 nights along with other members of their group.
Were these other families out drinking and eating, and leaving their children unprotected ?
You can badger on about abduction, but there is no evidence that can be shown for that which can't be explained by other possibilities.
could you give abrief list of the possibilities with your idea of the probabilities
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 22, 2015, 09:28:12 PM
It's not unusual for people suffering deep shock to buckle at the knees and collapse to the floor. I watched a film today when a mother's knees gave way and she collapsed to the floor when hearing of her son's death,
May I remind you:-
April Jones parents did NOT search for their missing child. Not a single word of criticism from sceptics..
Sandy Davidson's mother did NOT search for her missing child. Not a single word of criticism from sceptics
Madeleine's parents DID search for their missing child. 8 Years of unrelenting criticism from sceptics.
What sort of warped logic is that when it's at home? Too daft for words IMO.
Key word...
Not a child missing for a few hours.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2015, 09:31:36 PM
Any parent whose child was missing would be scouring the streets.
Any mother whose child was missing in these circumstances for a couple of hours... As you put it.... Would be in a very poor state.... As John posted most mothers in these cases need sedation...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 09:06:21 AM
It's only your opinion that their actions were callous, and of course you are entitled to it - just as those who don't find it callous at all are entitled to theirs.
Coral Jones said that letting her child play outside was something she had done hundreds of times before.
The difference between the three families is that in two cases the parents/grandparents were inside (whether they were eating or drinking we don't know) - and their children were outside the house - but in Madeleine's case she was inside fast asleep in bed while her parents were outside.
IMO it would be that last scenario which I would have assumed to be the safest place to be (i.e. inside) - when it came to the possiblity of an approach by a stranger(s) with evil intent in mind.
Obviously it goes without saying that you will disagree.
'...but in Madeleine's case she was inside fast asleep in bed while her parents were outside.'
They just weren't outside, they were elsewhere, occupied by drinking , eating and socializing. For 5 nights in a row.
There is no comparison at all.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 10:10:13 AM
'...but in Madeleine's case she was inside fast asleep in bed while her parents were outside.'
They just weren't outside, they were elsewhere, occupied by drinking , eating and socializing. For 5 nights in a row.
There is no comparison at all.
The thread has established that Madeleine McCann's parents did indeed physically search for her in the aftermath of the discovery of her disappearance. This is in direct contravention of the rather bizarre propaganda put about over the past eight years that they did not.
This is just another tool in the box of the anti- McCann litany and causes me some bemusement at the mean and petty efforts to denigrate a couple who have probably instituted and maintained the biggest worldwide search for their missing child than any parent before or since.
Some time ago I asked for examples of other parents of missing children who had physically searched for them outwith the immediate aftermath of the disappearance. No-one has been able to come up with an example and I believe that in an urban setting that is because there are none. There are many valid reasons for this the main one being that it is against police advice.
The naked hatred directed at a couple who are paying dearly for any perceived lack of parenting skills would be amusing were it not so vile.
The person responsible for abducting Madeleine does not figure anywhere in the litany while the greatest opprobrium has been visited on the victims of the crime and every effort has and is being made to stop the investigation into what happened to the main victim. Absolutely bizarre!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 23, 2015, 10:27:35 AM
'...but in Madeleine's case she was inside fast asleep in bed while her parents were outside.'
They just weren't outside, they were elsewhere, occupied by drinking , eating and socializing. For 5 nights in a row.
There is no comparison at all.
They were less than 60 seconds walk away. In all three cases i.e. April Jones, Sandy Davidson and Madeleine, were not being supervised and were out of sight of their parents when they disappeared. Coral Jones has said that allowing April to play out was something she had done hundreds of times before - which is a lot more than on 5 occasions.
None of those parents had any reason to believe their children were in danger - and the fact that nothing had happened to them on previous occasions would reinforce their belief that their children were safe. A fact also acknowledged by the Portuguese AG in the McCann case.
QUOTE . 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. Unquote
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 10:37:47 AM
They were less than 60 seconds walk away. In all three cases i.e. April Jones, Sandy Davidson and Madeleine, were not being supervised and were out of sight of their parents when they disappeared. Coral Jones has said that allowing April to play out was something she had done hundreds of times before - which is a lot more than on 5 occasions.
None of those parents had any reason to believe their children were in danger - and the fact that nothing had happened to them on previous occasions would reinforce their belief that their children were safe. A fact also acknowledged by the Portuguese AG in the McCann case.
QUOTE . 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. Unquote
Are you living in the real world ?
They weren't in the back garden.
They were drinking, eating and talking......................
There were infrequent and unverified checks.
The children were in an unlocked apartment, that story had changed, in a foreign country and with a language they did not speak.
If you think those children were left safe and the mccanns displayed 'responsible parenting skills', then I truly despair of you.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 23, 2015, 10:49:55 AM
They were drinking, eating and talking......................
There were infrequent and unverified checks.
The children were in an unlocked apartment, that story had changed, in a foreign country and with a language they did not speak.
If you think those children were left safe and the mccanns displayed 'responsible parenting skills', then I truly despair of you.
What Benice is trying to point out to you Stephen, is that the McCann's did not want anything to happen to Madeleine, they could not foresee that an abductor would take her. They thought it was safe, they made an error of judgement.
You are trying to turn this thread around to neglect, because you have no argument as to how the McCann's behaved after they found Madeleine missing.
You call part of the guide for parents of missing children 'Propaganda' which is absolutely ridiculous, it was part of a guide especially written for parents whose child has gone missing.
You couldn't get your head around the fact that in that guide it points to everything which the McCann's had followed, they tried to get some sleep, to eat to exercise to keep themselves in shape to help the search for their daughter, notice how the guide is not saying they should go out and search Stephen?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 10:54:18 AM
They were drinking, eating and talking......................
There were infrequent and unverified checks.
The children were in an unlocked apartment, that story had changed, in a foreign country and with a language they did not speak.
If you think those children were left safe and the mccanns displayed 'responsible parenting skills', then I truly despair of you.
Someone took Madeleine McCann.
Remember her? She is the wee girl you object to the expense of looking for.
Perhaps you should set aside your diatribe on the victims of the crime ... and give just a little thought to directing some of that opprobrium to where it belongs ... the perpetrator/s of the crime.
Madeleine's parents have never stopped looking for her. There are those who have pulled every shabby trick in the book to obstruct them from doing so.
A bit of a mystery to me why they want to make innocent victims of crime suffer while ignoring totally the perpetrator/s of what Scotland Yard have described as a targeted abduction?
Obviously never heard of 'Victim Support' and care even less.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 11:03:12 AM
Remember her? She is the wee girl you object to the expense of looking for.
Perhaps you should set aside your diatribe on the victims of the crime ... and give just a little thought to directing some of that opprobrium to where it belongs ... the perpetrator/s of the crime.
Madeleine's parents have never stopped looking for her. There are those who have pulled every shabby trick in the book to obstruct them from doing so.
A bit of a mystery to me why they want to make innocent victims of crime suffer while ignoring totally the perpetrator/s of what Scotland Yard have described as a targeted abduction?
Obviously never heard of 'Victim Support' and care even less.
Your responses are becoming increasingly less than adequate.
Once again, the crime is unknown.
SY have not achieved anything, and if you think they have...........................
The mccanns did very little searching themselves, and that finished on the morning of the 4 th May 2007.
They employed directly, or indirectly, a series of incompetents, who would have great trouble organizing anything at a brewery.
NO ONE has stopped the mccanns 'searching'. That old chestnut is yet another myth perpetuated by people like you.
Time to get real brietta.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 23, 2015, 11:07:24 AM
They were drinking, eating and talking......................
There were infrequent and unverified checks.
The children were in an unlocked apartment, that story had changed, in a foreign country and with a language they did not speak.
If you think those children were left safe and the mccanns displayed 'responsible parenting skills', then I truly despair of you.
I have never mentioned 'in the back garden'. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.
You keep forgetting that it is only your opinion that the McCanns did not display responsible parenting skills. Thousands do not agree with you.
I notice you have studiously avoided all reference to the 'parenting skills' of Coral Jones for instance - who had allowed her 5 year old child to play out unsupervised 100's of times before. Surely you must be appalled by such 'irresponsible' behaviour which resulted in her child being abducted.
What is your opinion of the fact that neither April Jones nor Sandy Davidson's parents searched for their missing children? You must have an opinion - so what is it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 11:34:16 AM
I have never mentioned 'in the back garden'. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.
You keep forgetting that it is only your opinion that the McCanns did not display responsible parenting skills. Thousands do not agree with you.
I notice you have studiously avoided all reference to the 'parenting skills' of Coral Jones for instance - who had allowed her 5 year old child to play out unsupervised 100's of times before. Surely you must be appalled by such 'irresponsible' behaviour which resulted in her child being abducted.
What is your opinion of the fact that neither April Jones nor Sandy Davidson's parents searched for their missing children? You must have an opinion - so what is it?
The 'back garden' comes from the mccanns.
You say neither of those parents searched for their children. Can you cite the evidence for that.
If any of my children had gone missing, I would have been searching, and not just for a short duration.
Young children do need supervising, no doubt about it, and some people never learn as regards that. You can never be 100% safe, but what the mccanns did was no way near this margin.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 23, 2015, 12:06:10 PM
Read Coral's book Stephen.
You would NOT be out searching you would be going to the station to be interviewed by the police, don't make out you would be this wonder man who would do what no other parent has done.
After the police took over they arranged extensive searches with dogs etc. NO ONE expected the parents to be out among all that, so please stop talking rubbish.
Since they have searched the only way available to them and that has been through sightings as they don't know where Madeleine is.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 23, 2015, 01:10:49 PM
Searching began as soon as people realised a child was missing. .
David Payne, Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldham searched intermittently from 10pm. They went as far as the Millenium and the beach.
Fiona Payne did a circuit of nearby roads. she searched the apartment.
Dianne Webster walked as far as the roadworks.
Kate McCann searched the apartment. She also went out of the front door of the apartment and looked in the main entrance of the block with Fiona Payne.
Gerald McCann searched the apartment. He may have looked around the tennis courts if he was correctly identified by a Tapas employee. He searched up the stairs of the block with Rachael O'Brien.
He went out with David Payne between 3am and 4am to look for her.
The Ocean Club and Mark Warner employees searched with local people from 10.30pm to 4.30am. They were joined by policemen and dogs during the night.
At 4.30am people went to bed. The searches resumed at 8am. Meanwhile the McCanns spent an hour out of the apartment searching. They were seen in the street at 7am.
Most of the time the parents concentrated on phoning and texting relatives, friends and the Consulate,
11.40pm to 12pm gerald McCann called his brother, sister and the Kenndy's. 0.00.27 am Kate calls Sue and Brian Healy (128 seconds) 0.05.00 am Gerry calls Brian and Janet Kennedy (3 seconds) 0.05.45 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (3 seconds) 0.06.15 am Gerry calls Brian and Janet Kennedy (2.47 minutes) 0.13.14 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (3 seconds) 0.13.50 am Kate calls Sue and Brian Healy (407 seconds) 0.21.36 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (23 seconds) 0.23.12 am Gerry calls .... (3.55 minutes) 0.27.07 am Trish Cameron calls Gerry (2.28 minutes) 0.29.37 am Angela Morado at UK Consulate calls Gerry (4.53 minutes) 1.02.08 am Aurélio Guerreiro calls Kate (2.23 minutes) to offer help, at the request of Pat Perkins. A man answers the phone. 1.16.11 am Gerry calls A. M. UK Consulate(1.57 minutes) 1.29.58 am Phil McCann calls Gerry (3.36 minutes) 0.36.21 am Kate calls ... (31 seconds) 0.37.05 am voicemail calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS 0.38.40 am ... calls Gerry (6.40 minutes) 0.39.58 am Kate calls voicemail (34 seconds) 0.40.50 am voicemail calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS 0.45.15 am Brian and Janet Kennedy call Gerry (1.18 minutes) 0.45.49 am Kate calls voicemail (31 seconds) 0.47.23 am Aurélio Guerreiro calls Kate (2.39 minutes) to offer help, at the request of Pat Perkins. A man answers the phone. 0.47.41 am Angela Morado at UK Consulate calls Gerry (2.15 minutes) 0.53.08 am ... calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS 0.-1.30am Kate calls Priest
The phone calls and texts continue solidly until 9.45am.
Parental searching around 2 hours. Parental phoning and texting around 10 hours.
It makes sense to call relatives just in case the child is going to remain missing. I don't understand calling friends at this stage as the child could have been found at any moment.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 01:27:06 PM
Your responses are becoming increasingly less than adequate.
Once again, the crime is unknown.
SY have not achieved anything, and if you think they have...........................
The mccanns did very little searching themselves, and that finished on the morning of the 4 th May 2007.
They employed directly, or indirectly, a series of incompetents, who would have great trouble organizing anything at a brewery.
NO ONE has stopped the mccanns 'searching'. That old chestnut is yet another myth perpetuated by people like you.
Time to get real brietta.
There is no problem at all responding to you. You do follow such a limited and predictable script ... don't you think it might be an idea to update it a little.
For a crime which is "unknown" there has been a terrific amount of police time devoted to it with varying levels of expertise starting with the utterly incompetent and misguided.
It goes without saying that Madeleine's parents have mounted and sustained the most intensive search for a missing child ever known. Not surprising that you are blind to that fact. What is surprising is your lack of embarrassment in displaying your ignorance accompanied by your absolute contempt for posters in the aggressive personal tone you continually adopt in responses. It doesn't really come into the realms of what is known as debate in polite circles ... more akin to 'stairheed' brawling in my opinion ...
As far as denial that people have assiduously worked to throw a spanner into the works of everything the Drs McCann have endeavoured to do on behalf of Madeleine and their search for her ... as you are well aware that has a long history. The most recent petition seems to have died of embarrassment ... not surprising really ... what is surprising is the negativity which promulgates and promotes them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 01:48:48 PM
There is no problem at all responding to you. You do follow such a limited and predictable script ... don't you think it might be an idea to update it a little.
For a crime which is "unknown" there has been a terrific amount of police time devoted to it with varying levels of expertise starting with the utterly incompetent and misguided.
It goes without saying that Madeleine's parents have mounted and sustained the most intensive search for a missing child ever known. Not surprising that you are blind to that fact. What is surprising is your lack of embarrassment in displaying your ignorance accompanied by your absolute contempt for posters in the aggressive personal tone you continually adopt in responses. It doesn't really come into the realms of what is known as debate in polite circles ... more akin to 'stairheed' brawling in my opinion ...
As far as denial that people have assiduously worked to throw a spanner into the works of everything the Drs McCann have endeavoured to do on behalf of Madeleine and their search for her ... as you are well aware that has a long history. The most recent petition seems to have died of embarrassment ... not surprising really ... what is surprising is the negativity which promulgates and promotes them.
The formulaic script is yours, followed by you and the rest of your clique.
Don't bother either with that third paragraph either. The history of mccann supporters insulting the 'sceptics' is well known and you have used it on me. For example the use of the word 'adequate', which you said to me in reference to knowledge of one of the subjects I teach. You hide behind subtle use of snide remarks to other posters as well. So don't think it has gone unnoticed. However, like your fellows you go crying to the mods when you get a taste of your own medicine.
Meanwhile, in the real world, no one has stopped the mccanns searching. Not that I believed for one moment they have been seriously 'searching'.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 01:50:34 PM
You would NOT be out searching you would be going to the station to be interviewed by the police, don't make out you would be this wonder man who would do what no other parent has done.
After the police took over they arranged extensive searches with dogs etc. NO ONE expected the parents to be out among all that, so please stop talking rubbish.
Since they have searched the only way available to them and that has been through sightings as they don't know where Madeleine is.
Who prevented the mccanns searching after seeing the police ?
Likewise,many other people were searching the area, not just the police, so your excuses don't wash.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 23, 2015, 02:17:18 PM
Who prevented the mccanns searching after seeing the police ?
Likewise,many other people were searching the area, not just the police, so your excuses don't wash.
You really cannot imagine yourself in the place of the parents can you? When they came back from the station they went out Gerry read out an appeal to anyone who had seen Madeleine or who would have taken Madeleine, surely you could see how traumatised they were doing that?
No one wants the parents of a child to be searching when she could be found dead, none of the other parents I know of who have had a child disappear have gone out searching once the police have taken over. Please read up on what other parents have done Stephen and don't imagine for one minute that you wouldn't have done the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxHuwT__URc
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 23, 2015, 02:17:26 PM
Searching began as soon as people realised a child was missing. .
David Payne, Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldham searched intermittently from 10pm. They went as far as the Millenium and the beach.
Fiona Payne did a circuit of nearby roads. she searched the apartment.
Dianne Webster walked as far as the roadworks.
Kate McCann searched the apartment. She also went out of the front door of the apartment and looked in the main entrance of the block with Fiona Payne.
Gerald McCann searched the apartment. He may have looked around the tennis courts if he was correctly identified by a Tapas employee. He searched up the stairs of the block with Rachael O'Brien.
He went out with David Payne between 3am and 4am to look for her.
The Ocean Club and Mark Warner employees searched with local people from 10.30pm to 4.30am. They were joined by policemen and dogs during the night.
At 4.30am people went to bed. The searches resumed at 8am. Meanwhile the McCanns spent an hour out of the apartment searching. They were seen in the street at 7am.
Most of the time the parents concentrated on phoning and texting relatives, friends and the Consulate,
11.40pm to 12pm gerald McCann called his brother, sister and the Kenndy's. 0.00.27 am Kate calls Sue and Brian Healy (128 seconds) 0.05.00 am Gerry calls Brian and Janet Kennedy (3 seconds) 0.05.45 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (3 seconds) 0.06.15 am Gerry calls Brian and Janet Kennedy (2.47 minutes) 0.13.14 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (3 seconds) 0.13.50 am Kate calls Sue and Brian Healy (407 seconds) 0.21.36 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (23 seconds) 0.23.12 am Gerry calls .... (3.55 minutes) 0.27.07 am Trish Cameron calls Gerry (2.28 minutes) 0.29.37 am Angela Morado at UK Consulate calls Gerry (4.53 minutes) 1.02.08 am Aurélio Guerreiro calls Kate (2.23 minutes) to offer help, at the request of Pat Perkins. A man answers the phone. 1.16.11 am Gerry calls A. M. UK Consulate(1.57 minutes) 1.29.58 am Phil McCann calls Gerry (3.36 minutes) 0.36.21 am Kate calls ... (31 seconds) 0.37.05 am voicemail calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS 0.38.40 am ... calls Gerry (6.40 minutes) 0.39.58 am Kate calls voicemail (34 seconds) 0.40.50 am voicemail calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS 0.45.15 am Brian and Janet Kennedy call Gerry (1.18 minutes) 0.45.49 am Kate calls voicemail (31 seconds) 0.47.23 am Aurélio Guerreiro calls Kate (2.39 minutes) to offer help, at the request of Pat Perkins. A man answers the phone. 0.47.41 am Angela Morado at UK Consulate calls Gerry (2.15 minutes) 0.53.08 am ... calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS 0.-1.30am Kate calls Priest
The phone calls and texts continue solidly until 9.45am.
Parental searching around 2 hours. Parental phoning and texting around 10 hours.
It makes sense to call relatives just in case the child is going to remain missing. I don't understand calling friends at this stage as the child could have been found at any moment.
Where do you get 10 hours of phonecalls from? I have added up the calls made by Gerry and Kate as listed above and it works out at around 70 minutes in total between them!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 23, 2015, 02:19:00 PM
Searching began as soon as people realised a child was missing. .
David Payne, Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldham searched intermittently from 10pm. They went as far as the Millenium and the beach.
Fiona Payne did a circuit of nearby roads. she searched the apartment.
Dianne Webster walked as far as the roadworks.
Kate McCann searched the apartment. She also went out of the front door of the apartment and looked in the main entrance of the block with Fiona Payne.
Gerald McCann searched the apartment. He may have looked around the tennis courts if he was correctly identified by a Tapas employee. He searched up the stairs of the block with Rachael O'Brien.
He went out with David Payne between 3am and 4am to look for her.
The Ocean Club and Mark Warner employees searched with local people from 10.30pm to 4.30am. They were joined by policemen and dogs during the night.
At 4.30am people went to bed. The searches resumed at 8am. Meanwhile the McCanns spent an hour out of the apartment searching. They were seen in the street at 7am.
Most of the time the parents concentrated on phoning and texting relatives, friends and the Consulate,
11.40pm to 12pm gerald McCann called his brother, sister and the Kenndy's. 0.00.27 am Kate calls Sue and Brian Healy (128 seconds) 0.05.00 am Gerry calls Brian and Janet Kennedy (3 seconds) 0.05.45 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (3 seconds) 0.06.15 am Gerry calls Brian and Janet Kennedy (2.47 minutes) 0.13.14 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (3 seconds) 0.13.50 am Kate calls Sue and Brian Healy (407 seconds) 0.21.36 am Gerry calls Trish Cameron (23 seconds) 0.23.12 am Gerry calls .... (3.55 minutes) 0.27.07 am Trish Cameron calls Gerry (2.28 minutes) 0.29.37 am Angela Morado at UK Consulate calls Gerry (4.53 minutes) 1.02.08 am Aurélio Guerreiro calls Kate (2.23 minutes) to offer help, at the request of Pat Perkins. A man answers the phone. 1.16.11 am Gerry calls A. M. UK Consulate(1.57 minutes) 1.29.58 am Phil McCann calls Gerry (3.36 minutes) 0.36.21 am Kate calls ... (31 seconds) 0.37.05 am voicemail calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS 0.38.40 am ... calls Gerry (6.40 minutes) 0.39.58 am Kate calls voicemail (34 seconds) 0.40.50 am voicemail calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS 0.45.15 am Brian and Janet Kennedy call Gerry (1.18 minutes) 0.45.49 am Kate calls voicemail (31 seconds) 0.47.23 am Aurélio Guerreiro calls Kate (2.39 minutes) to offer help, at the request of Pat Perkins. A man answers the phone. 0.47.41 am Angela Morado at UK Consulate calls Gerry (2.15 minutes) 0.53.08 am ... calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS 0.-1.30am Kate calls Priest
The phone calls and texts continue solidly until 9.45am.
Parental searching around 2 hours. Parental phoning and texting around 10 hours.
It makes sense to call relatives just in case the child is going to remain missing. I don't understand calling friends at this stage as the child could have been found at any moment.
My goodness! Didn’t they do well, informing everyone who was of importance, between waiting for police and being interviewed by GNR and PJ. I believe the police left approx.4am.
Of course they phoned family, I wouldn’t want my family to hear about the disappearance from the news either. They also phoned everybody who might be able to help……………They were desperate, distressed, afraid and probably in shock.
Apart from the time taken up by the police, the men searched all night while the women were with their children.
Gerry and Kate went out as soon as it was light after asking Fi to watch over the twins. They would have to be back to sort out the babies, before preparing to go to the police station
8.30am they were all outside waiting to go to the police station. A photo here http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html
Smip:- 4078 “Okay. Did you go to bed at all that night to get some sleep?” Reply “Not until, it was probably about, I think about half four’ish, yeah, we tried to, tried to go to bed, I think purely because we knew in the morning we’d be asked for statements, so it was like (inaudible) sleep at all but it was like try and, try and get some rest to function in the morning”. 4078 “What about Russell (inaudible)?”
Reply “Well him and Matt they were doing the, they were, I think they were sort of searching, I don’t know where they searched, but they, they were actually sort of running around actually looking farther afield, so didn’t really see them much at all. I think that they did come back and as I say I can’t remember when they came back but I remember them coming back and then they went off again. And then I think they, Russell was there when I spoke to the PJ, because I can remember Russell coming in with me when I spoke to the PJ, because there was Russell and Gerry was there as well in the apartment when I spoke to the PJ. And that was the first time I’d ever been into their, into Kate and Gerry’s apartment through the whole week, I hadn’t, it might seem like, but we hadn’t really been into their apartment before”. 4078 “Sorry, was that on the night that Madeleine had disappeared?” Reply “That was at three o’clock in the morning after she’d disappeared, yeah”.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id222.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 02:31:27 PM
The formulaic script is yours, followed by you and the rest of your clique.
Don't bother either with that third paragraph either. The history of mccann supporters insulting the 'sceptics' is well known and you have used it on me. For example the use of the word 'adequate', which you said to me in reference to knowledge of one of the subjects I teach. You hide behind subtle use of snide remarks to other posters as well. So don't think it has gone unnoticed. However, like your fellows you go crying to the mods when you get a taste of your own medicine.
Meanwhile, in the real world, no one has stopped the mccanns searching. Not that I believed for one moment they have been seriously 'searching'.
Absolutely correct. "no one has stopped the mccanns searching." for the very simple reason ... they did not allow any of the campaigns against them by groups of like minded people to get in the way of their determination to have Madeleine looked for and hopefully found.
When your daughter is out there and you haven't a clue where or what her fate might be you do the best you can to find her particularly as no-one else seemed to have the will to try to address the problems caused by the thoroughly botched and compromised initial investigation.
I doubt very much if there is another ordinary couple - and bear in mind the Drs McCann were just that until Madeleine's disappearance - who could have overcome everything which has been thrown at them to concentrate single mindedly on the search and recovery of their daughter.
There are those who cannot seem to forgive them for achieving the impossible ... there are also those who regret that Madeleine McCann became not only the victim of an abductor but the victim of incompetence and everything that went amiss in her case after she was taken by that person.
Try aiming your opprobrium in that direction ... it might make a pleasant change for you.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 02:37:42 PM
Absolutely correct. "no one has stopped the mccanns searching." for the very simple reason ... they did not allow any of the campaigns against them by groups of like minded people to get in the way of their determination to have Madeleine looked for and hopefully found.
When your daughter is out there and you haven't a clue where or what her fate might be you do the best you can to find her particularly as no-one else seemed to have the will to try to address the problems caused by the thoroughly botched and compromised initial investigation.
I doubt very much if there is another ordinary couple - and bear in mind the Drs McCann were just that until Madeleine's disappearance - who could have overcome everything which has been thrown at them to concentrate single mindedly on the search and recovery of their daughter.
There are those who cannot seem to forgive them for achieving the impossible ... there are also those who regret that Madeleine McCann became not only the victim of an abductor but the victim of incompetence and everything that went amiss in her case after she was taken by that person.
Try aiming your opprobrium in that direction ... it might make a pleasant change for you.
Very predictable reply.
Again the mantra of abduction and not with one iota of proof.
Your reply merely highlights the deductions made about posters such as yourself.
As to to being the victim of incompetence, Madeleine was, her parents, and not some fictional abductor or the police force who tried to solve her disappearance.
So bleat on.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 02:38:16 PM
You really cannot imagine yourself in the place of the parents can you? When they came back from the station they went out Gerry read out an appeal to anyone who had seen Madeleine or who would have taken Madeleine, surely you could see how traumatised they were doing that?
No one wants the parents of a child to be searching when she could be found dead, none of the other parents I know of who have had a child disappear have gone out searching once the police have taken over. Please read up on what other parents have done Stephen and don't imagine for one minute that you wouldn't have done the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxHuwT__URc
I hate to remind you of an empirical piece of logic and good parenting skills, but I would never have let my children alone and unsafe, if I went out to drink and eat ?
Would you ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 03:00:41 PM
Again the mantra of abduction and not with one iota of proof.
Your reply merely highlights the deductions made about posters such as yourself.
As to to being the victim of incompetence, Madeleine was, her parents, and not some fictional abductor or the police force who tried to solve her disappearance.
So bleat on.
I am rather pleased that I come so low in your estimation ... I would worry were it otherwise. Do feel free to have the last rejoinder.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 03:06:53 PM
Where do you get 10 hours of phonecalls from? I have added up the calls made by Gerry and Kate as listed above and it works out at around 70 minutes in total between them!
Well done! You didn't notice then that I stopped listing them individually, just saying instead that they continued at the same frequency until 9.45am on the 4th?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 23, 2015, 03:18:11 PM
Well done! You didn't notice then that I stopped listing them individually, just saying instead that they continued at the same frequency until 9.45am on the 4th?
I didn't notice that no, my humble apologies.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 23, 2015, 03:56:21 PM
I hate to remind you of an empirical piece of logic and good parenting skills, but I would never have let my children alone and unsafe, if I went out to drink and eat ?
Would you ?
I have stated many times on this forum that I would not have left my children alone, the McCann's made a very bad decision and have said so themselves and they are paying for it.
However, you are unable to put yourself in the parents shoes as to how they were feeling when they found their child missing or how parents deal with having a missing child.
You just keep posting the same thing 'any loving parent would have searched' you post that without even thinking out what you would have done yourself. When asked though you said you would search the surrounding area, which is what they did. Then they waited for the police, which is what you would do, then they helped the police with their enquires which is what parent should do.
To then say they should have searched after going to the station, the police were doing an extensive search, they were traumatised, what good would it do to go out and search where the police had already searched? Also the police do not want the parents out searching for obvious reasons. To say others were searching, well yes they were but they weren't the child's parents were they. Then you agree that what if one parent stayed in whilst the other searched, well then again search where ? where the police were searching? It doesn't matter which parent goes out that parent would not want to find their child dead.
So why don't you have a good think Stephen, before you post any more nasty spiteful posts about the lack of searching.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 04:07:54 PM
I have stated many times on this forum that I would not have left my children alone, the McCann's made a very bad decision and have said so themselves and they are paying for it.
However, you are unable to put yourself in the parents shoes as to how they were feeling when they found their child missing or how parents deal with having a missing child.
You just keep posting the same thing 'any loving parent would have searched' you post that without even thinking out what you would have done yourself. When asked though you said you would search the surrounding area, which is what they did. Then they waited for the police, which is what you would do, then they helped the police with their enquires which is what parent should do.
To then say they should have searched after going to the station, the police were doing an extensive search, they were traumatised, what good would it do to go out and search where the police had already searched? Also the police do not want the parents out searching for obvious reasons. To say others were searching, well yes they were but they weren't the child's parents were they. Then you agree that what if one parent stayed in whilst the other searched, well then again search where ? where the police were searching? It doesn't matter which parent goes out that parent would not want to find their child dead.
So why don't you have a good think Stephen, before you post any more nasty spiteful posts about the lack of searching.
Going searching doesn't mean you assume a child is dead.
However, if parents don't search whilst others do , as did the police EXTENSIVELY, whilst finding time to do other things and 'keeping busy', raises the question of them knowing whether or not it was a pointless exercise.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 23, 2015, 04:19:15 PM
Going searching doesn't mean you assume a child is dead.
However, if parents don't search whilst others do , as did the police EXTENSIVELY, whilst finding time to do other things and 'keeping busy', raises the question of them knowing whether or not it was a pointless exercise.
No it doesn't as the other things as you call them was going to the station and helping the police.
As the McCann's searched for Madeleine as much as one would expect parents to search I don't see how there could be any suspicion about them. Are you saying that Coral didn't search for April because she knew it was a pointless exercise, or are you just accusing the McCann's.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 23, 2015, 04:26:04 PM
At the end of the day, all the McCanns have been found guilty of is not acting in the way the "sceptics" believe they would have behaved in a similar situation - it's all they have, and it's really quite sad to think that it's been enough to sustain their campaign for the last nearly 9 years, and probably will be enough to sustain them for the next nine years too.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 23, 2015, 04:32:54 PM
Going searching doesn't mean you assume a child is dead.
However, if parents don't search whilst others do , as did the police EXTENSIVELY, whilst finding time to do other things and 'keeping busy', raises the question of them knowing whether or not it was a pointless exercise.
The very reason why Sandy Davidson's mother could not bring herself to search was because she was so frightened of what she might find. It doesn't take rocket science to work out what it was that she was dreading finding. Are you claiming it was because she knew that it was a pointless exercise to search - as that would infer that she was complicit in the disappearance of her little boy?
You don't say how you would cope with the scores of reporters and photographers and other media people desperately hoping and waiting for you to emerge - as the secrecy laws meant they were getting zilch from the police. Not much chance of seaching IMO when you are surrounded by a mob shoving microphones and cameras in your face and firing questions at you. How would you have dealt with them Stephen?
The advice from the police is to stay at home - although once again you appear to think you know better than the experts. So nothing new there then.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 23, 2015, 04:34:24 PM
At the end of the day, all the McCanns have been found guilty of is not acting in the way the "sceptics" believe they would have behaved in a similar situation - it's all they have, and it's really quite sad to think that it's been enough to sustain their campaign for the last nearly 9 years, and probably will be enough to sustain them for the next nine years too.
At the end of the day all the supporters have is an unshakable belief that the McCanns told the truth. Taking people at face value is an admirable but rather naive trait.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 23, 2015, 04:40:52 PM
At the end of the day all the supporters have is an unshakable belief that the McCanns told the truth. Taking people at face value is an admirable but rather naive trait.
Which I don't have, but what I do possess instead is the ability to look at the facts objectively and unemotionally, and to use logic to come to conclusions, invariably the right ones.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 23, 2015, 04:48:19 PM
At the end of the day all the supporters have is an unshakable belief that the McCanns told the truth. Taking people at face value is an admirable but rather naive trait.
On the contrary - although I believe that witnesses genuinely told the truth as they recalled it - that doesn't mean their recollections were always accurate. Fortunately the police, more than anyone else IMO, are well aware of the fallibility of memory - and for that reason - unlike many sceptics - they do not automatically believe that if there are discrepancies, then someone must be lying. It's nothing to do with being naive.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 23, 2015, 05:01:35 PM
At the end of the day all the supporters have is an unshakable belief that the McCanns told the truth. Taking people at face value is an admirable but rather naive trait.
It is more naïve to believe that everyone except the McCanns is telling the truth.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 05:08:36 PM
No it doesn't as the other things as you call them was going to the station and helping the police.
As the McCann's searched for Madeleine as much as one would expect parents to search I don't see how there could be any suspicion about them. Are you saying that Coral didn't search for April because she knew it was a pointless exercise, or are you just accusing the McCann's.
Do you enjoy going around in circles ?
The 'other things' I was referring to, didn't include the police.
You know full well what I mean. I have mentioned on this thread already.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2015, 06:58:53 PM
At the end of the day all the supporters have is an unshakable belief that the McCanns told the truth. Taking people at face value is an admirable but rather naive trait.
my conclusions are not based on an unshakable belief...you are totally wrong....it is noted that Sy also believe the McCanns...a very inconvenient truth for the sceptics to deal with
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 07:30:13 PM
my conclusions are not based on an unshakable belief...you are totally wrong....it is noted that Sy also believe the McCanns...a very inconvenient truth for the sceptics to deal with
Yet SY have found absolutely nothing.
Now could that be that there is nothing to find as regards abduction ? 8**8:/:
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on November 23, 2015, 07:35:35 PM
At the end of the day, all the McCanns have been found guilty of is not acting in the way the "sceptics" believe they would have behaved in a similar situation - it's all they have, and it's really quite sad to think that it's been enough to sustain their campaign for the last nearly 9 years, and probably will be enough to sustain them for the next nine years too.
You could always look upon it as a kind of job creation scheme by the "sad sceptics". After all their sustained campaign has created employment of a sort for you, davel, Brietta et al for few hours every day.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 23, 2015, 07:50:28 PM
You could always look upon it as a kind of job creation scheme by the "sad sceptics". After all their sustained campaign has created employment of a sort for you, davel, Brietta et al for few hours every day.
and so too for you then, as alpha WUM of the forum.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 23, 2015, 07:51:39 PM
You could always look upon it as a kind of job creation scheme by the "sad sceptics". After all their sustained campaign has created employment of a sort for you, davel, Brietta et al for few hours every day.
Nice one Alice. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 07:57:28 PM
You could always look upon it as a kind of job creation scheme by the "sad sceptics". After all their sustained campaign has created employment of a sort for you, davel, Brietta et al for few hours every day.
Pot? Kettle? Chicken? or Egg?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 23, 2015, 08:50:51 PM
At the end of the day, all the McCanns have been found guilty of is not acting in the way the "sceptics" believe they would have behaved in a similar situation - it's all they have, and it's really quite sad to think that it's been enough to sustain their campaign for the last nearly 9 years, and probably will be enough to sustain them for the next nine years too.
You really should qualify and/or quantify your posts when attacking anyone who has any questions or doubts on any issue in this cold case....to borg all and sundry into some big heading of some 9 year campaign is at the very best dishnonest time to clean your act up chum
Consider yourself very lucky that I didnt make reference to you and some of your ilkish brethren or "sisters" on here making a likeness between all that do have questions with serial rapists and killers....oops, sorry...! Somethng you really should question yourself about when looking in the mirror MATE and reLising how low you need to stoop
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 23, 2015, 09:41:23 PM
I have never mentioned 'in the back garden'. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.
You keep forgetting that it is only your opinion that the McCanns did not display responsible parenting skills. Thousands do not agree with you.
I notice you have studiously avoided all reference to the 'parenting skills' of Coral Jones for instance - who had allowed her 5 year old child to play out unsupervised 100's of times before. Surely you must be appalled by such 'irresponsible' behaviour which resulted in her child being abducted.
What is your opinion of the fact that neither April Jones nor Sandy Davidson's parents searched for their missing children? You must have an opinion - so what is it?
I like the idea that you chose to compare Coral Jones parenting skills to those of the McCANNS. Totally different!
April was 5 years old and was out playing with her friends- she WAS actually abducted by someone known to her-and her familywe know she was abducted because her friend- a child- was a witness!
Madeleine was 3 years old- on holiday with her family- she disappeared. no witneses, no sign of a struggle, no sign of a forced entry... I could say more like the circimstances were different in that Aprils mum was not out wining and dining...etc
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 10:04:56 PM
I like the idea that you chose to compare Coral Jones parenting skills to those of the McCANNS. Totally different!
April was 5 years old and was out playing with her friends- she WAS actually abducted by someone known to her-and her familywe know she was abducted because her friend- a child- was a witness!
Madeleine was 3 years old- on holiday with her family- she disappeared. no witneses, no sign of a struggle, no sign of a forced entry... I could say more like the circimstances were different in that Aprils mum was not out wining and dining...etc
What evidence was there that April had been abducted? As far as I can tell there was no sign of a struggle. As it often is when a child is abducted the only pointer to abduction was eye witness testimony.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 23, 2015, 10:11:40 PM
What evidence was there that Coral had been abducted? As far as I can tell there was no sign of a struggle. As it often is when a child is abducted the only pointer to abduction was eye witness testimony.
I never said coral jones was abducted!
I said April Jones was, and we know she was because there was a witness- a friend, who was playing with her.
April knew her abductor,hence no struggle.
No evidence as I have explained regaridng Madeliene being 'abducted' no witness, no sign of a struggle, no forced entry.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 10:19:19 PM
What evidence was there that April had been abducted? As far as I can tell there was no sign of a struggle. As it often is when a child is abducted the only pointer to abduction was eye witness testimony.
perpetrator confessed so your post is null and void
There is not a shred of. evidence that Madeleine was abducted, even if she was so deal with it
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 23, 2015, 10:31:48 PM
Jane Tanner was a witness ... of that I am nearly certain.
Yeah, well no matter because you were not there! and JT is not being treated as a witness to Maddie's 'abduction', on the other hand April's witness was credible and accurate and led to a conviction!
So, about this comparison....best you drop it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 23, 2015, 10:42:56 PM
perpetrator confessed so your post is null and void
There is not a shred of. evidence that Madeleine was abducted, even if she was so deal with it
Painstaking detective work resulted in April's abductor being apprehended ... he was found guilty after trial by jury.
If April's abduction had not been witnessed there would not have been a shred of evidence as to what had happened to her ... perhaps you should deal with that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 23, 2015, 10:52:48 PM
Painstaking detective work resulted in April's abductor being apprehended ... he was found guilty after trial by jury.
If April's abduction had not been witnessed there would not have been a shred of evidence as to what had happened to her ... perhaps you should deal with that.
PAINSTAKING? they asked a few simple questions and they got honest answers and worked from that! where was she , what was she doing, who was with her who saw her last in the area? the friend then tells she got into a van with a man she knew. A search was very thourough.
Now about the 'crime scene at 5a... nothing it was like Oxford street at xmas in there. No witneses, no evidence of a forced entry, no sign of a struggle. what about questioning welllllllllllllllllll what about a reconstruction wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.... enough said. You chose a bad comparison.
Hmmm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 23, 2015, 10:55:11 PM
Painstaking detective work resulted in April's abductor being apprehended ... he was found guilty after trial by jury.
If April's abduction had not been witnessed there would not have been a shred of evidence as to what had happened to her ... perhaps you should deal with that.
Dont be silly...the perpetrator was found pdq, nothing painstaking, was a matter of days..THIS case bears no relation whatsoever
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 23, 2015, 11:09:05 PM
I am dragging the chain significantly on quantity I think in the company I enumerated; but yer gotta admit my quality is above average and someone had to take the place of my son 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 24, 2015, 02:54:45 PM
Dont be silly...the perpetrator was found pdq, nothing painstaking, was a matter of days..THIS case bears no relation whatsoever
Real justice does not operate on the model of the Kangaroo court favoured by the denizens of the internet.
Evidence is required.
I reiterate that April's murderer was apprehended, brought to trial and sentenced after due process which included painstaking detective work which ensured his conviction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22642989
If you think that was a stroll in the park ... be my guest, however in the real world detectives have to find real evidence to ensure conviction and the search for evidence in April's case was nothing if not painstaking.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 24, 2015, 03:10:47 PM
Real justice does not operate on the model of the Kangaroo court favoured by the denizens of the internet.
Evidence is required.
I reiterate that April's murderer was apprehended, brought to trial and sentenced after due process which included painstaking detective work which ensured his conviction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22642989
If you think that was a stroll in the park ... be my guest, however in the real world detectives have to find real evidence to ensure conviction and the search for evidence in April's case was nothing if not painstaking.
Wasn't the search for April's body one of the longest and costliest ever conducted?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 24, 2015, 06:35:37 PM
Wasn't the search for April's body one of the longest and costliest ever conducted?
Indeed it was and not without a high risk factor for professional searchers and volunteers. What her parents must have suffered throughout that time just doesn't bear thinking about.
Indeed it was and not without a high risk factor for professional searchers and volunteers. What her parents must have suffered throughout that time just doesn't bear thinking about.
The 'other things' I was referring to, didn't include the police.
You know full well what I mean. I have mentioned on this thread already.
It's you who must enjoy going around in circles, as every time you get a reply about the McCann's searching and what they did the following day, you ignore it. Then a few more posts along you post exactly the same thing 'the McCann's didn't search'. It really does become quite tedious.
I haven't got a clue what you are talking about 'other things' as they were helping the police.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 24, 2015, 07:34:02 PM
Using the information from the parents, Madeleine was left asleep in her bed, the window was open, Madeleine was not found. Then abduction comes into the equation.
SY have said that Madeleine was taken by a stranger, so how can anyone say that there was no evidence of abduction?
I believe there was DNA evidence found that didn't match with anyone.
There doesn't have to be obvious signs of abduction such as a smashed window or a door that has been broken into, finger prints etc.
The police use what evidence they have and they are investigating abduction.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 24, 2015, 07:38:42 PM
Using the information from the parents, Madeleine was left asleep in her bed, the window was open, Madeleine was not found. Then abduction comes into the equation.
SY have said that Madeleine was taken by a stranger, so how can anyone say that there was no evidence of abduction?
I believe there was DNA evidence found that didn't match with anyone.
There doesn't have to be obvious signs of abduction such as a smashed window or a door that has been broken into, finger prints etc.
The police use what evidence they have and they are investigating abduction.
Saying the window was open, does not mean it was.
As to lack of evidence !ace, that also applies to other scenarios as well.
Keep that in mind.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 24, 2015, 07:56:58 PM
As to lack of evidence !ace, that also applies to other scenarios as well.
Keep that in mind.
It could be SY had no reason to disbelieve the McCann's with regard the window, I don't know why they would say the window was open if it wasn't, it didn't have to be the entrance for an abductor as they left the patio door open!!!
What scenarios?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 24, 2015, 08:00:50 PM
Using the information from the parents, Madeleine was left asleep in her bed, the window was open, Madeleine was not found. Then abduction comes into the equation.
SY have said that Madeleine was taken by a stranger, so how can anyone say that there was no evidence of abduction?
I believe there was DNA evidence found that didn't match with anyone.
There doesn't have to be obvious signs of abduction such as a smashed window or a door that has been broken into, finger prints etc.
The police use what evidence they have and they are investigating abduction.
I wonder if the police know that open and unlocked windows and doors often feature in staged abductions....? No, that wouldn't occur to them, would it? Their remit was to investigate an abduction, not to decide whether there was an abduction.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 24, 2015, 08:02:39 PM
It's you who must enjoy going around in circles, as every time you get a reply about the McCann's searching and what they did the following day, you ignore it. Then a few more posts along you post exactly the same thing 'the McCann's didn't search'. It really does become quite tedious.
I haven't got a clue what you are talking about 'other things' as they were helping the police.
It is already well known that the McCann's did not fully cooperate with the investigation.
As to the 'other things', as I said, they are in my previous comments on this thread.
As a final reminder, the McCann's final search was for an hour the following morning. As to what they did on that 'search', were they watched or do we have only their words for what they did ?
and when it comes to tedious, a very apt description of those defending the McCann's.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 24, 2015, 08:04:11 PM
It could be SY had no reason to disbelieve the McCann's with regard the window, I don't know why they would say the window was open if it wasn't, it didn't have to be the entrance for an abductor as they left the patio door open!!!
What scenarios?
Are you for real ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2015, 08:15:28 PM
SY have said that Madeleine was taken by a stranger, so how can anyone say that there was no evidence of abduction?
No, we have been through this before, SY (aka Redwood ) did not categorically or less categorically state this, what he did do was say it was a possibility
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2015, 09:42:16 PM
No, we have been through this before, SY (aka Redwood ) did not categorically or less categorically state this, what he did do was say it was a possibility
no he didn't
he said their expert opinion ...based on the evidence...was that Maddie was taken by a stranger.....bit hard for you to swallow but that's a fact
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 24, 2015, 09:43:54 PM
He also said she could have died in the apartment.
so if we put everything he said together ...what do we get...parents not suspects...maddie taken by a stranger...may have been killed in the apartment before being taken
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 24, 2015, 09:50:18 PM
so if we put everything he said together ...what do we get...parents not suspects...maddie taken by a stranger...may have been killed in the apartment before being taken
Actually we get nothing.
Redwood found nothing and the crime remains undetermined.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 24, 2015, 10:03:37 PM
Indeed, SY have paid lip service to "abduction" nothing more....
it's quite good to see you think 11 mill is lip service...rather puts in the place those who think too much has been spent on one child...thanks and well done
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 24, 2015, 10:23:16 PM
so if we put everything he said together ...what do we get...parents not suspects...maddie taken by a stranger...may have been killed in the apartment before being taken
He didn't say- may have been killed in the apartment by a stranger. Why do you suppose that? Could it be because he doesn't know? Could it be he was thinking of ALL possibilities? and thinking about other theories?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 24, 2015, 10:37:45 PM
He didn't say- may have been killed in the apartment by a stranger. Why do you suppose that? Could it be because he doesn't know? Could it be he was thinking of ALL possibilities? and thinking about other theories?
Indeed, he didnt qualify the "might not have left the apartment alive" part
Question is do they or do they not have a clue I suppose
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 25, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
I wonder if the police know that open and unlocked windows and doors often feature in staged abductions....? No, that wouldn't occur to them, would it? Their remit was to investigate an abduction, not to decide whether there was an abduction.
So if during their investigation SY decided there was no abduction - do you think they would simply keep schtum about that and carry on just 'pretending' there was an abduction because that was their remit? What would be the point of such insanity?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2015, 07:52:08 AM
He didn't say- may have been killed in the apartment by a stranger. Why do you suppose that? Could it be because he doesn't know? Could it be he was thinking of ALL possibilities? and thinking about other theories?
hes already said parents not suspects....so do you want just to believe the things that suit your bias or like me do you accept his statements as a whoole
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 07:54:20 AM
hes already said parents not suspects....so do you want just to believe the things that suit your bias or like me do you accept his statements as a whoole
He said many things and he found NOTHING. £4%4%
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2015, 08:14:25 AM
He didn't say- may have been killed in the apartment by a stranger. Why do you suppose that? Could it be because he doesn't know? Could it be he was thinking of ALL possibilities? and thinking about other theories?
I do believe that davel say 'MAY have been killed in the apartment by a stranger' which is exactly what SY said, that a burglary could have gone wrong and Madeleine was killed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 25, 2015, 08:34:19 AM
Why do I always get the impression that you are mocking the police when you post things like that Stephen, it's almost as if you are glad they have found nothing.
Though you don't know what they have found do you?
For someone who says they want 'Justice' for Madeleine, you have a very strange way of showing it. Surely justice for Madeleine would start firstly by finding her and understanding what happened to her, which is what SY are trying to do.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 25, 2015, 08:35:26 AM
Sorry that last post was a reply to Stephen and not Davel, mod please could you sort my post out 8()-000( SORRY!!!
Sorted
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 08:47:30 AM
Why do I always get the impression that you are mocking the police when you post things like that Stephen, it's almost as if you are glad they have found nothing.
Though you don't know what they have found do you?
For someone who says they want 'Justice' for Madeleine, you have a very strange way of showing it. Surely justice for Madeleine would start firstly by finding her and understanding what happened to her, which is what SY are trying to do.
I find that first sentence truly ironic, given the history of mccann supporters attacking the PJ.
You don't appear to have grasped the truth yet, that SY haven't found anything as regards abduction.
Has it occurred to you there is nothing to find ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 25, 2015, 08:57:37 AM
So if during their investigation SY decided there was no abduction - do you think they would simply keep schtum about that and carry on just 'pretending' there was an abduction because that was their remit? What would be the point of such insanity?
Why did the remit mention abduction if other possibilities were going to be considered? Police investigations usually look at the evidence and then decide which crime or crimes had been committed, not the other way round.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 09:32:52 AM
Of course they would - they have been told to. Not all crimes are solved, however much effort is put in.
So let's just not bother then. Let's look at all crimes committed and decide in advance which ones are easier to solve and only bother with them. Even though the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is one of the biggest mysteries in recent times, and may involve a predatory paedophile, let's not bother trying to solve it cos there's little likelihood of a result.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 25, 2015, 09:33:46 AM
Of course they would - they have been told to. Not all crimes are solved, however much effort is put in.
SY opened the case after a review, they found many areas of investigation. If they had not found new evidence then they wouldn't have reopened the case.
The case may not be solved, but that doesn't mean SY haven't found anything, just that they have yet to find proof.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 25, 2015, 09:34:55 AM
I find that first sentence truly ironic, given the history of mccann supporters attacking the PJ.
You don't appear to have grasped the truth yet, that SY haven't found anything as regards abduction.
Has it occurred to you there is nothing to find ?
Most posters do not attack the PJ as a whole - and recognise that there are many decent hardworking policemen amongst them. Unfortunately (for Madeleine) there were also a couple of policemen - not only amongst them- but actually leading them - who ended up with criminal convictions for crimes related to their previous 'police work'. Are you saying we should admire and trust these two crooks who abused their power, and that they should be above criticism?
Nothing was found when Ben Needham disappeared. According to your logic that means there was nothing to find and so Ben could not have been abducted.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on November 25, 2015, 09:35:27 AM
Why did the remit mention abduction if other possibilities were going to be considered? Police investigations usually look at the evidence and then decide which crime or crimes had been committed, not the other way round.
So, is it your belief that the High Ups have instructed the Met to take part in a monumental cover up?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 25, 2015, 09:43:27 AM
Why did the remit mention abduction if other possibilities were going to be considered? Police investigations usually look at the evidence and then decide which crime or crimes had been committed, not the other way round.
You didn't answer my question:
No matter what the remit was to start with - do you think that SY would have ignored or simply turned a blind eye to anything which emerged during their investigations which pointed to something other than an abduction - on the grounds that that wasn't part of their remit?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on November 25, 2015, 09:58:35 AM
So let's just not bother then. Let's look at all crimes committed and decide in advance which ones are easier to solve and only bother with them. Even though the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is one of the biggest mysteries in recent times, and may involve a predatory paedophile, let's not bother trying to solve it cos there's little likelihood of a result.
Well, if that's what you really think.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
So, is it your belief that the High Ups have instructed the Met to take part in a monumental cover up?
I'm pretty sure that no-one 'instructed the Met to take part in a monumental cover up'. However, mentioning the crime in the remit suggests that the nature of the crime was decided before the review began, does it not?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 10:37:00 AM
I'm pretty sure that no-one 'instructed the Met to take part in a monumental cover up'. However, mentioning the crime in the remit suggests that the nature of the crime was decided before the review began, does it not?
So who do you think decided that and why?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
I'm pretty sure that no-one 'instructed the Met to take part in a monumental cover up'. However, mentioning the crime in the remit suggests that the nature of the crime was decided before the review began, does it not?
Let's face it, Redwood previously and Wall currently have not progressed this investigation despite spending a fortune on it. Eight years on they know no more than the Portuguese did weeks after Maddie disappeared.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 25, 2015, 11:33:14 AM
Let's face it, Redwood previously and Wall currently have not progressed this investigation despite spending a fortune on it. Eight years on they know no more than the Portuguese did weeks after Maddie disappeared.
And are now ramping down. It makes one wonder does it not ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2015, 11:40:47 AM
Let's face it, Redwood previously and Wall currently have not progressed this investigation despite spending a fortune on it. Eight years on they know no more than the Portuguese did weeks after Maddie disappeared.
How do you know what they know (or don't know)?
Do you have inside information?
Personally, I would tend to take the fact that the present enquiry has been granted extra funding as a guide that inside information suggests greater progress (in bringing matters to a successful conclusion) than we could ever guess at.
I would like to think we would all love me to be right on that ....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 25, 2015, 11:54:17 AM
I have no idea Alfred. It could be a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune, I suppose. Whoever wrote it either set the parameters of the investigation or jumped the gun and assumed that 'abduction' was going to be the answer. Operation Grange did seem to allow for the possibility of a death with their searches of the town.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 25, 2015, 12:41:55 PM
I have no idea Alfred. It could be a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune, I suppose. Whoever wrote it either set the parameters of the investigation or jumped the gun and assumed that 'abduction' was going to be the answer. Operation Grange did seem to allow for the possibility of a death with their searches of the town.
Makes one wonder why anyone so powerful they could 'call the tune' - would contemplate taking even the slightest risk to that power- for a couple of doctors from Leicester - ( who in the scheme of all things 'political' were of no importance to them at all) - by secretly trying to influence the outcome of a SY investigation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 01:04:09 PM
I have no idea Alfred. It could be a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune, I suppose. Whoever wrote it either set the parameters of the investigation or jumped the gun and assumed that 'abduction' was going to be the answer. Operation Grange did seem to allow for the possibility of a death with their searches of the town.
Then you are basically allowing for the possibility of conspiracy at a high level, unless I have misunderstood.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 01:04:53 PM
Then you are basically allowing for the possibility of conspiracy at a high level, unless I have misunderstood.
Unlike the person who wrote the remit I am allowing for all possibilities, that's all. In some cases the nature of the crime is known, even if the perpetrator isn't. In this case the nature of the crime wasn't known in advance. It could have been just a slip of the pen for all I know, but it hasn't been corrected.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 02:06:36 PM
Unlike the person who wrote the remit I am allowing for all possibilities, that's all. In some cases the nature of the crime is known, even if the perpetrator isn't. In this case the nature of the crime wasn't known in advance. It could have been just a slip of the pen for all I know, but it hasn't been corrected.
No one knows what happened to Claudia Lawrence. It's possible that she fell into the river and got swept away. It's possible she assumed a new identity and ran away to join the circus in Outer Mongolia, or eloped with a millionaire member of the Mafia. However, quite early on in the investigation into her disappearance it seems the police decided it was a murder investigation. Was that wrong of them?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2015, 02:10:28 PM
Personally, I would tend to take the fact that the present enquiry has been granted extra funding as a guide that inside information suggests greater progress (in bringing matters to a successful conclusion) than we could ever guess at.
I would like to think we would all love me to be right on that ....
It isn't rocket science ferryman, no arrests, no claims to progress and a huge downsizing of Operation Grange only means one thing and that is a total and absolute failure.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2015, 02:15:50 PM
It isn't rocket science ferryman, no arrests, no claims to progress and a huge downsizing of Operation Grange only means one thing and that is a total and absolute failure.
You mean they aren't discussing the enquiry, just as they said they wouldn't do?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 25, 2015, 02:25:13 PM
It might help to read the OG Remit and part of The Portuguese Archiving process in conjunction then explain convincingly how one reconciles "whole of the investigations" with only abduction when the PJ investigated more than abduction. Don't work any too well do it?
Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
• The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies. • UK Law Enforcement agencies, • Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End
From PJ Archiving Document
The investigation, during more than 13 months, followed all the credible indices related to different hypotheses and, in an impartial manner, continued to analyse, correlate and synthesize them, looking for an explanation for the happenings of the night of 3 May 2007.
Assuming that the minor's disappearance was due to the acts of third parties, the PJ explored various lines of investigation, not excluding any hypothesis considered plausible or hypothetically acceptable.
From the documentation, you will observe that during the investigation various possibilities were contemplated.
As such, consider:
1. abduction, for sexual exploration or other (e.g, later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide;
2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse;
3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse;
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 02:39:13 PM
Not so much a conspiracy but an attempt to avoid an acute embarrassment when the truth of what really happened to Maddie is revealed.
However you want to put it, you are talking about a cover up conspiracy on the part of those at the highest level.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on November 25, 2015, 02:53:57 PM
I'm sure we all know how weasley these politicians are after the huge amount of dirty PR and spin they have utilised over the years. If it was some kind of cover up, it could be said that the purpose of the review was simply to investigate abduction and nothing to the contrary was said if this is ever questioned.
However, I can't see any possible reason why they would not fully investigate all possibilities and to what benefits it would achieve by doing anything else but that. The government imo would not find it embarrassing if they revealed the truth and that was the McCann's were involved - it would be embarrassing for the McCanns, not the government and a long time in jail.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 03:17:50 PM
I'm sure we all know how weasley these politicians are after the huge amount of dirty PR and spin they have utilised over the years. If it was some kind of cover up, it could be said that the purpose of the review was simply to investigate abduction and nothing to the contrary was said if this is ever questioned.
However, I can't see any possible reason why they would not fully investigate all possibilities and to what benefits it would achieve by doing anything else but that. The government imo would not find it embarrassing if they revealed the truth and that was the McCann's were involved - it would be embarrassing for the McCanns, not the government and a long time in jail.
Quite right.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 25, 2015, 03:59:35 PM
I'm sure we all know how weasley these politicians are after the huge amount of dirty PR and spin they have utilised over the years. If it was some kind of cover up, it could be said that the purpose of the review was simply to investigate abduction and nothing to the contrary was said if this is ever questioned.
However, I can't see any possible reason why they would not fully investigate all possibilities and to what benefits it would achieve by doing anything else but that. The government imo would not find it embarrassing if they revealed the truth and that was the McCann's were involved - it would be embarrassing for the McCanns, not the government and a long time in jail.
It might help to read the OG Remit and part of The Portuguese Archiving process in conjunction then explain convincingly how one reconciles "whole of the investigations" with only abduction when the PJ investigated more than abduction. Don't work any too well do it?
Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
• The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies. • UK Law Enforcement agencies, • Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End
From PJ Archiving Document
The investigation, during more than 13 months, followed all the credible indices related to different hypotheses and, in an impartial manner, continued to analyse, correlate and synthesize them, looking for an explanation for the happenings of the night of 3 May 2007.
Assuming that the minor's disappearance was due to the acts of third parties, the PJ explored various lines of investigation, not excluding any hypothesis considered plausible or hypothetically acceptable.
From the documentation, you will observe that during the investigation various possibilities were contemplated.
As such, consider:
1. abduction, for sexual exploration or other (e.g, later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide;
2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse;
3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse;
Viable options which were investigated as was appropriate at the time. How on earth the initial investigation allowed itself to become bogged down in the 'accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse' thesis is one of the mysteries of Madeleine McCann's case. There was not one shred of evidence to support pursuing it and only bizarre, convoluted scenarios as to how Madeleine's body was dealt with had to be invented, not one of which was remotely possible to keep the fantasy alive.
All attention appears to have been concentrated on Scotland Yard finding enough evidence to justify reopening the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
The Policia Judiciaria team from Porto carried out their own review and concluded there was evidence ... which under the terms of the archiving document ... had to be new evidence ... to enable Madeleine's case to be reopened.
It is insulting to both law enforcement bodies for anyone to suggest they bowed to outside influences in order to reach their professional conclusions that evidence was in existence which meant the case should properly be reopened.
One of the first issues which I am sure both reviewing teams would have gone over with a fine tooth comb is the Amaral theory of accidental death.
It is instructive that both SY and the PJ have been pursuing the stranger abduction theory. Certainly tells me what they are looking for and the fact that neither is the least bit interested in 'nailing' Madeleine's parents despite knowing exactly where they are, should tell other folks something too.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 25, 2015, 04:04:00 PM
I'm sure we all know how weasley these politicians are after the huge amount of dirty PR and spin they have utilised over the years. If it was some kind of cover up, it could be said that the purpose of the review was simply to investigate abduction and nothing to the contrary was said if this is ever questioned.
However, I can't see any possible reason why they would not fully investigate all possibilities and to what benefits it would achieve by doing anything else but that. The government imo would not find it embarrassing if they revealed the truth and that was the McCann's were involved - it would be embarrassing for the McCanns, not the government and a long time in jail.
I agree with that well thought out post. Logical.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 04:09:33 PM
Viable options which were investigated as was appropriate at the time. How on earth the initial investigation allowed itself to become bogged down in the 'accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse' thesis is one of the mysteries of Madeleine McCann's case. There was not one shred of evidence to support pursuing it and only bizarre, convoluted scenarios as to how Madeleine's body was dealt with had to be invented, not one of which was remotely possible to keep the fantasy alive.
All attention appears to have been concentrated on Scotland Yard finding enough evidence to justify reopening the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
The Policia Judiciaria team from Porto carried out their own review and concluded there was evidence ... which under the terms of the archiving document ... had to be new evidence ... to enable Madeleine's case to be reopened.
It is insulting to both law enforcement bodies for anyone to suggest they bowed to outside influences in order to reach their professional conclusions that evidence was in existence which meant the case should properly be reopened.
One of the first issues which I am sure both reviewing teams would have gone over with a fine tooth comb is the Amaral theory of accidental death.
It is instructive that both SY and the PJ have been pursuing the stranger abduction theory. Certainly tells me what they are looking for and the fact that neither is the least bit interested in 'nailing' Madeleine's parents despite knowing exactly where they are, should tell other folks something too.
and they have found absolutely NOTHING.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 25, 2015, 04:12:33 PM
It isn't rocket science ferryman, no arrests, no claims to progress and a huge downsizing of Operation Grange only means one thing and that is a total and absolute failure.
The most reliable indicator of failure would be the pulling of the plug.
The plug hasn't been pulled.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on November 25, 2015, 04:20:18 PM
Viable options which were investigated as was appropriate at the time. How on earth the initial investigation allowed itself to become bogged down in the 'accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse' thesis is one of the mysteries of Madeleine McCann's case. There was not one shred of evidence to support pursuing it and only bizarre, convoluted scenarios as to how Madeleine's body was dealt with had to be invented, not one of which was remotely possible to keep the fantasy alive.
All attention appears to have been concentrated on Scotland Yard finding enough evidence to justify reopening the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
The Policia Judiciaria team from Porto carried out their own review and concluded there was evidence ... which under the terms of the archiving document ... had to be new evidence ... to enable Madeleine's case to be reopened.
It is insulting to both law enforcement bodies for anyone to suggest they bowed to outside influences in order to reach their professional conclusions that evidence was in existence which meant the case should properly be reopened.
One of the first issues which I am sure both reviewing teams would have gone over with a fine tooth comb is the Amaral theory of accidental death.
It is instructive that both SY and the PJ have been pursuing the stranger abduction theory. Certainly tells me what they are looking for and the fact that neither is the least bit interested in 'nailing' Madeleine's parents despite knowing exactly where they are, should tell other folks something too.
This is the salient point of the OG remit: "This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance".
Do you think then that having said that The Met then ignored it and chose not to investigate "the whole" but went off half cocked ?.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 25, 2015, 04:42:20 PM
Viable options which were investigated as was appropriate at the time. How on earth the initial investigation allowed itself to become bogged down in the 'accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse' thesis is one of the mysteries of Madeleine McCann's case. There was not one shred of evidence to support pursuing it and only bizarre, convoluted scenarios as to how Madeleine's body was dealt with had to be invented, not one of which was remotely possible to keep the fantasy alive.
All attention appears to have been concentrated on Scotland Yard finding enough evidence to justify reopening the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
The Policia Judiciaria team from Porto carried out their own review and concluded there was evidence ... which under the terms of the archiving document ... had to be new evidence ... to enable Madeleine's case to be reopened.
It is insulting to both law enforcement bodies for anyone to suggest they bowed to outside influences in order to reach their professional conclusions that evidence was in existence which meant the case should properly be reopened.
One of the first issues which I am sure both reviewing teams would have gone over with a fine tooth comb is the Amaral theory of accidental death.
It is instructive that both SY and the PJ have been pursuing the stranger abduction theory. Certainly tells me what they are looking for and the fact that neither is the least bit interested in 'nailing' Madeleine's parents despite knowing exactly where they are, should tell other folks something too.
Have the McCanns even been re-interviewed by the second enquiry?
Or any of their friends?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 25, 2015, 05:01:30 PM
This is the salient point of the OG remit: "This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance".
Do you think then that having said that The Met then ignored it and chose not to investigate "the whole" but went off half cocked ?.
I don't understand what you are getting at. How does one normally conduct a cold case investigation? Everything without exception is looked at ... that is the whole point and the only way to identify what has been missed that may be relevant.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 05:05:32 PM
Viable options which were investigated as was appropriate at the time. How on earth the initial investigation allowed itself to become bogged down in the 'accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse' thesis is one of the mysteries of Madeleine McCann's case. There was not one shred of evidence to support pursuing it and only bizarre, convoluted scenarios as to how Madeleine's body was dealt with had to be invented, not one of which was remotely possible to keep the fantasy alive.
All attention appears to have been concentrated on Scotland Yard finding enough evidence to justify reopening the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
The Policia Judiciaria team from Porto carried out their own review and concluded there was evidence ... which under the terms of the archiving document ... had to be new evidence ... to enable Madeleine's case to be reopened.
It is insulting to both law enforcement bodies for anyone to suggest they bowed to outside influences in order to reach their professional conclusions that evidence was in existence which meant the case should properly be reopened.
One of the first issues which I am sure both reviewing teams would have gone over with a fine tooth comb is the Amaral theory of accidental death.
It is instructive that both SY and the PJ have been pursuing the stranger abduction theory. Certainly tells me what they are looking for and the fact that neither is the least bit interested in 'nailing' Madeleine's parents despite knowing exactly where they are, should tell other folks something too.
You are something of a fantasist it seems.
'Viable options which were investigated as was appropriate at the time. How on earth the initial investigation allowed itself to become bogged down in the 'accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse' thesis is one of the mysteries of Madeleine McCann's case. There was not one shred of evidence to support pursuing it and only bizarre, convoluted scenarios as to how Madeleine's body was dealt with had to be invented, not one of which was remotely possible to keep the fantasy alive.'
No evidence was found for abduction, as remains the case.
Investigation of the parents was a logical step.
Accidental death has not been disproved.
Remember the dogs.
Whether you like it or not, the dogs indicated. The forensics were inconclusive.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2015, 05:08:08 PM
'Viable options which were investigated as was appropriate at the time. How on earth the initial investigation allowed itself to become bogged down in the 'accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse' thesis is one of the mysteries of Madeleine McCann's case. There was not one shred of evidence to support pursuing it and only bizarre, convoluted scenarios as to how Madeleine's body was dealt with had to be invented, not one of which was remotely possible to keep the fantasy alive.'
No evidence was found for abduction, as remains the case.
Investigation of the parents was a logical step.
Accidental death has not been disproved.
Remember the dogs.
Whether you like it or not, the dogs indicated. The forensics were inconclusive.
doesn't bother me that the dogs barked...they found b****r all
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 05:11:53 PM
doesn't bother me that the dogs barked...they found b****r all
Tough.
Made up abduction, with no evidence that can't be explained by the other logical scenarios, as regards disappearance.
and definitely ZIP as regards forensic evidence of abduction.
Tell me dave, is it true kate mccann was discussing the open doors on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance, when the doors had been locked all day ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2015, 05:19:23 PM
Made up abduction, with no evidence that can't be explained by the other logical scenarios, as regards disappearance.
and definitely ZIP as regards forensic evidence of abduction.
Tell me dave, is it true kate mccann was discussing the open doors on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance, when the doors had been locked all day ?
i'll ask her later
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 05:22:16 PM
It might help to read the OG Remit and part of The Portuguese Archiving process in conjunction then explain convincingly how one reconciles "whole of the investigations" with only abduction when the PJ investigated more than abduction. Don't work any too well do it?
Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
• The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies. • UK Law Enforcement agencies, • Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End
From PJ Archiving Document
The investigation, during more than 13 months, followed all the credible indices related to different hypotheses and, in an impartial manner, continued to analyse, correlate and synthesize them, looking for an explanation for the happenings of the night of 3 May 2007.
Assuming that the minor's disappearance was due to the acts of third parties, the PJ explored various lines of investigation, not excluding any hypothesis considered plausible or hypothetically acceptable.
From the documentation, you will observe that during the investigation various possibilities were contemplated.
As such, consider:
1. abduction, for sexual exploration or other (e.g, later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide;
2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse;
3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse;
They forgot to add the accidental death without third party participation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2015, 05:46:30 PM
I'm sure we all know how weasley these politicians are after the huge amount of dirty PR and spin they have utilised over the years. If it was some kind of cover up, it could be said that the purpose of the review was simply to investigate abduction and nothing to the contrary was said if this is ever questioned.
However, I can't see any possible reason why they would not fully investigate all possibilities and to what benefits it would achieve by doing anything else but that. The government imo would not find it embarrassing if they revealed the truth and that was the McCann's were involved - it would be embarrassing for the McCanns, not the government and a long time in jail.
If such a scenario came to be the government would find it extremely hard to accept that they were sold a pup.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 05:53:31 PM
A conspiracy is premeditated whereas mitigating their embarrassment is not and that is the difference.
What embarrassment would be caused and to who? If the government is instructing the Met to pursue abduction to the exclusion of all else, and not to investigate the parents in case they are embarrassed by the findings then that is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and a cover up.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 05:58:11 PM
If such a scenario came to be the government would find it extremely hard to accept that they were sold a pup.
What utter nonsense. "Sold a pup"? Who by? You think if the McCanns were arrested and charged and subsequently found guilty for doing away with their child that the government would be embarrassed? Why ever so? More or less embarrassed than the investigation into the phone hacking scandal, which resulted in David Cameron's media man going to prison?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2015, 05:58:58 PM
Viable options which were investigated as was appropriate at the time. How on earth the initial investigation allowed itself to become bogged down in the 'accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse' thesis is one of the mysteries of Madeleine McCann's case. There was not one shred of evidence to support pursuing it and only bizarre, convoluted scenarios as to how Madeleine's body was dealt with had to be invented, not one of which was remotely possible to keep the fantasy alive.
No mystery at all Brietta. Had the parents of the missing kid cooperated fully with the initial enquiry then the investigation would have proceeded and ruled them out hopefully. But they didn't cooperate and set about a campaign to undermine and discredit the Portuguese police. The Metodo 3/Correia conspiracy, the refusal to take part in a police reconstruction, the authoring of a book miscalling several police officers all evidence this fact. The McCanns did everything in their power to thwart the initial investigation because it didn't suit them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 25, 2015, 06:03:40 PM
I don't understand what you are getting at. How does one normally conduct a cold case investigation? Everything without exception is looked at ... that is the whole point and the only way to identify what has been missed that may be relevant.
Presactly. That much we are agreed on then. Nothing is ruled out or in until the investigation is completed; which it isn't unless I miss my guess.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 06:04:45 PM
What embarrassment would be caused and to who? If the government is instructing the Met to pursue abduction to the exclusion of all else, and not to investigate the parents in case they are embarrassed by the findings then that is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and a cover up.
...or the blind leading the blind @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2015, 06:10:10 PM
What utter nonsense. "Sold a pup"? Who by? You think if the McCanns were arrested and charged and subsequently found guilty for doing away with their child that the government would be embarrassed? Why ever so? More or less embarrassed than the investigation into the phone hacking scandal, which resulted in David Cameron's media man going to prison?
'Doing away' as you put it is a new one on me Alf, have SY considered that another option?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 25, 2015, 06:11:06 PM
'Doing away' as you put it is a new one on me Alf, have SY considered that another option?
You are deflecting. I think you know what I meant by doing away, but in case you didn't I meant "hiding the body". Now perhaps you can address the point. Or perhaps not.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 06:29:05 PM
So the Government are blind, and so are the Met - is that your view? Clueless and stupid, unlike the mighty PJ and the Portuguese government no doubt!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2015, 06:29:44 PM
I think anyone who thinks Redwood had any choice but to respond in the negative to a question about the McCanns status within the investigation is naive at best. Even a ' no comment' would fuel speculation and may have given grounds for appeal if a conviction was secured against them in the future.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 06:32:13 PM
I think anyone who thinks Redwood had any choice but to respond in the negative to a question about the McCanns status within the investigation is naive at best. Even a ' no comment' would fuel speculation and may have given grounds for appeal if a conviction was secured against them in the future.
What lunacy is this? You seem to be suggesting that when the police announce a suspect by name, that this gives the suspect grounds for appeal against a later conviction. Is that actually what you are suggesting?!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 06:34:59 PM
Anyone who believes that Redwood was put on the spot live on TV by a shrewd journalist and didn't have full control over what was and wasn't reported about the case is naïve at best, and that's putting it politely.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2015, 06:41:17 PM
What lunacy is this? You seem to be suggesting that when the police announce a suspect by name, that this gives the suspect grounds for appeal against a later conviction. Is that actually what you are suggesting?!
Unless a suspect is being sought, can you name a time when an individual has been named before they are charged ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 06:48:25 PM
I think anyone who thinks Redwood had any choice but to respond in the negative to a question about the McCanns status within the investigation is naive at best. Even a ' no comment' would fuel speculation and may have given grounds for appeal if a conviction was secured against them in the future.
This has to be one of your more ridiculous posts..seeing as amaral has already written a book...made a documentary and no doubt worn several T shirts saying it was Kate wot dunnit.....what effect do you think that would have on any imaginary trial
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2015, 07:00:59 PM
This has to be one of your more ridiculous posts..seeing as amaral has already written a book...made a documentary and no doubt worn several T shirts saying it was Kate wot dunnit.....what effect do you think that would have on any imaginary trial
@)(++(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 07:10:03 PM
This has to be one of your more ridiculous posts..seeing as amaral has already written a book...made a documentary and no doubt worn several T shirts saying it was Kate wot dunnit.....what effect do you think that would have on any imaginary trial
We know the mccanns dunnit.
They left their children in needless jeopardy.
All for a bit of socializing. 8**8:/:
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2015, 07:14:51 PM
'Viable options which were investigated as was appropriate at the time. How on earth the initial investigation allowed itself to become bogged down in the 'accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse' thesis is one of the mysteries of Madeleine McCann's case. There was not one shred of evidence to support pursuing it and only bizarre, convoluted scenarios as to how Madeleine's body was dealt with had to be invented, not one of which was remotely possible to keep the fantasy alive.'
No evidence was found for abduction, as remains the case.
Investigation of the parents was a logical step.
Accidental death has not been disproved.
Remember the dogs.
Whether you like it or not, the dogs indicated. The forensics were inconclusive.
"No evidence was found for abduction, as remains the case."
Madeleine McCann's case is a perfect example of insufficient investigation resulting in the retrieval of insufficient information to prove anything either way. It is in direct correlation to the disastrously botched primary collection of evidence by the forensic team, perhaps aligned to the delay in making the apartment a crime scene.
"Investigation of the parents was a logical step."
It is my understanding that a competent investigation eliminates those with opportunity and access to the victim right at the start of an investigation. Generally if suspicions are raised as a result these are evidence based. Months into the investigation when all else had failed, there was absolutely no evidence which justified the Drs McCann being constituted arguidos in Madeleine's disappearance - competent law enforcement generally disregards alleged dreams as appropriate probable cause.
"Accidental death has not been disproved."
No death has been proved accidental or otherwise.
"Remember the dogs."
Whether you like it or not it rather behoves you to remember exactly what the significance of the dogs was and their value to finding out what happened to Madeleine
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 25, 2015, 07:33:40 PM
No mystery at all Brietta. Had the parents of the missing kid cooperated fully with the initial enquiry then the investigation would have proceeded and ruled them out hopefully. But they didn't cooperate and set about a campaign to undermine and discredit the Portuguese police. The Metodo 3/Correia conspiracy, the refusal to take part in a police reconstruction, the authoring of a book miscalling several police officers all evidence this fact. The McCanns did everything in their power to thwart the initial investigation because it didn't suit them.
I disagree Angelo.
The Drs McCann were relying on Mr Amaral's investigation to discover what had happened to Madeleine ... within days the Portuguese papers were reporting that they and their companions were swingers.
It was all downhill from there.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 25, 2015, 07:43:52 PM
Presactly. That much we are agreed on then. Nothing is ruled out or in until the investigation is completed; which it isn't unless I miss my guess.
Nope ... not quite ... once the evidence rules something out ... it is a fair assumption that one progresses to the next stage suggested by following on from the remaining evidence.
One problem solved leads to the next requiring solution and so on and so on.
I sincerely hope that unlike internet detectives the real ones are not stuck in ground hog day telling themselves how wonderful they are.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 25, 2015, 07:56:42 PM
Real justice does not operate on the model of the Kangaroo court favoured by the denizens of the internet.
Evidence is required.
I reiterate that April's murderer was apprehended, brought to trial and sentenced after due process which included painstaking detective work which ensured his conviction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22642989
If you think that was a stroll in the park ... be my guest, however in the real world detectives have to find real evidence to ensure conviction and the search for evidence in April's case was nothing if not painstaking.
There was at base solid evidence and witnesses which made the police's job easier than without it..they apprehended the culprit within days.......to compare the two cases is ludicrous at best
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2015, 08:00:33 PM
"No evidence was found for abduction, as remains the case."
Madeleine McCann's case is a perfect example of insufficient investigation resulting in the retrieval of insufficient information to prove anything either way. It is in direct correlation to the disastrously botched primary collection of evidence by the forensic team, perhaps aligned to the delay in making the apartment a crime scene.
"Investigation of the parents was a logical step."
It is my understanding that a competent investigation eliminates those with opportunity and access to the victim right at the start of an investigation. Generally if suspicions are raised as a result these are evidence based. Months into the investigation when all else had failed, there was absolutely no evidence which justified the Drs McCann being constituted arguidos in Madeleine's disappearance - competent law enforcement generally disregards alleged dreams as appropriate probable cause.
"Accidental death has not been disproved."
No death has been proved accidental or otherwise.
"Remember the dogs."
Whether you like it or not it rather behoves you to remember exactly what the significance of the dogs was and their value to finding out what happened to Madeleine
Your understanding is tainted for the reason you are on this forum.
To protect the mccanns.
You can say what you wish, but the facts are simple.
Madeleine was extensively searched for weeks, with no result.
No evidence supports abduction, which could not be explained by other possibilities.
Do you think by your repetition of the mccann abduction mantra ad nauseum, people will believe you. other than your fellow believers ?
Then dream on.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 25, 2015, 08:08:56 PM
Please do not presume to know why I or any other poster have chosen to post on this forum. It is none of your business.
However the fact it gives you some annoyance is enough to convince me I'm getting something right.
When did Mr Amaral's thesis take precedence over the search for a living child who it was still possible to find?
Maybe the Mccanns should have left it alone....instead of giving it publicity.....just think of all the money they would have to carry on tryng to find their , in your words as if its a fact "living child" instead of in their lawyers and PR employees pockets....stupid comes to mind
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2015, 08:20:10 PM
Maybe the Mccanns should have left it alone....instead of giving it publicity.....just think of all the money they would have to carry on tryng to find their , in your words as if its a fact "living child" instead of in their lawyers and PR employees pockets....stupid comes to mind
If I understood your post I would respond ... and since there is no mention of 'searching' it may very well be OT anyway.
Don't you ever get fed up with your McCann bashing? ... it certainly bores me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 25, 2015, 08:30:56 PM
If I understood your post I would respond ... and since there is no mention of 'searching' it may very well be OT anyway.
Don't you ever get fed up with your McCann bashing? ... it certainly bores me.
My post was a response to your THIRD paragraph....why you struggled to understand I have no idea
Mccann bashing? Youre having a laugh...I have given them plenty of leeway and acknowledge arguments for and against, quite disingenuous of you...perhaps I shouldnt be so kind and considerate in future!! But I will not be dictated or emotionally blackmailed to by you or anyone else....its actually a human right, didnt you know?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 10:15:14 PM
My post was a response to your THIRD paragraph....why you struggled to understand I have no idea
Mccann bashing? Youre having a laugh...I have given them plenty of leeway and acknowledge arguments for and against, quite disingenuous of you...perhaps I shouldnt be so kind and considerate in future!! But I will not be dictated or emotionally blackmailed to by you or anyone else....its actually a human right, didnt you know?
Oh ... is that what it was. Little wonder I failed to make head nor tail of it then.
Nothing at all about whether the effect Mr Amaral's undeviating attention to his supposed death thesis for Madeleine McCann might have had the result of impinging on the search for her ... which was the question I posed in my post.
Your tiresome tirade about publicity ... money ... lawyers ... PR people ... says McCann bashing to me.
It would be appropriate to remind you that others also enjoy the human rights to which you lay claim ... or do you think that is everyone but the Drs McCann and Madeleine who may very well have been denied the human right of being searched for as a living child because of the conviction of her death without a shred of evidence to support it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 11:11:45 PM
Perhaps other European countries have different rules on the naming of suspects ?
You claimed that Redwood would not even have been allowed to answer "no comment" to the question of the McCanns' status without it jeopardizing some future (mythical) conviction. What has that got to do with rules for naiming suspects in other european countries?
Did you actually hear any interviewer pose the question of the McCanns' status anyway? If so what was the actual question? How was it phrased and who asked it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 25, 2015, 11:13:43 PM
Oh ... is that what it was. Little wonder I failed to make head nor tail of it then.
Nothing at all about whether the effect Mr Amaral's undeviating attention to his supposed death thesis for Madeleine McCann might have had the result of impinging on the search for her ... which was the question I posed in my post.
Your tiresome tirade about publicity ... money ... lawyers ... PR people ... says McCann bashing to me.
It would be appropriate to remind you that others also enjoy the human rights to which you lay claim ... or do you think that is everyone but the Drs McCann and Madeleine who may very well have been denied the human right of being searched for as a living child because of the conviction of her death without a shred of evidence to support it.
And there as me thinking that the recent court case had decided GA's book and hence the theories contained within had not impacted on the search.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2015, 11:14:43 PM
You claimed that Redwood would not even have been allowed to answer "no comment" to the question of the McCanns' status without it jeopardizing some future (mythical) conviction. What has that got to do with rules for naiming suspects in other european countries?
Did you actually hear any interviewer pose the question of the McCanns' status anyway? If so what was the actual question? How was it phrased and who asked it?
You haven't commented on my link about the naming of suspects before they are arrested or charged.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 11:16:57 PM
You haven't commented on my link about the naming of suspects before they are arrested or charged.
having now skimmed the article in your link it seems to be advice for media outlets to avoid being sued for libel, not about the risk to future convictions secured by the judiciary by the police naming of a suspect prior to arrest, as you have stated.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2015, 11:22:33 PM
because I didn't read it, but perhaps someone in Portugal should have read it before they made the McCanns and Murat their chief suspects, eh? 8(0(*
We are talking about the UK not Portugal. Here are the guidelines for the naming of suspects in the UK :
'If the police or another agency is investigating a person or the person is under arrest, this makes them a crime suspect. Media organisations, though, must be careful not to publish the identity (name or another detail identifying him/her) of a suspect at this stage, if they have been able to discover such information. This is because if the police investigation does not lead to a criminal prosecution then the suspect would be able to sue the organisation for libel.
This remains the case for reports or broadcasts which make it very clear that no prosecution has yet taken place (and thus the suspect could still be completely innocent). This is because such an, albeit factually correct report, creates an inference that the person might be guilty and so is defamatory to that suspect. Such an inference may turn out to be unfounded and the media organisation may be unable to defend it in a subsequent libel case.
However, there may be an official release of the identity of a person under investigation or under arrest by a spokesperson for the police, the CPS or other governmental agencies like local councils. In this instance, it is perfectly safe for a media organisation to publish this information as if it comes to a libel case, they can rely on the defence of qualified privilege (if all the requirements for this are met).
ACPO guidelines on police naming of suspects
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) issued a set of guidelines to the police on this subject. The guidelines stated that the police should not generally provide the names of people under investigation to the media. If they do not actually identify the suspect, the police are allowed to give some details such as age, occupation or where the suspect is from.
The ACPO guidelines also state that once an individual has been charged then the police can and will identify them to the media, usually providing name, age and occupation. There are certain exceptions; for instance this applies to adults (see other articles for juveniles). The official release of this information will include details of the charge and subsequent court appearances.
In what it terms ‘exceptional circumstances’, the ACPO guidelines accept that police may release the name of a suspect prior to a charge, if it is in the public interest to do so. Moreover, when a media organisation has already discovered the suspect’s name through investigative journalism and seek confirmation of it, the police are permitted to confirm the name.'
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2015, 11:24:39 PM
having now skimmed the article in your link it seems to be advice for media outlets to avoid being sued for libel, not about the risk to future convictions secured by the judiciary by the police naming of a suspect prior to arrest, as you have stated.
The point being made is there was a very good reason why Redwood couldn't name the McCanns, whether they were being investigated as suspects or not.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 25, 2015, 11:24:56 PM
And there as me thinking that the recent court case had decided GA's book and hence the theories contained within had not impacted on the search.
Pretty much but some don't believe it. The Portuguese judge is quoted on the "bun and ha'penny" principle too. One minute she don't know A from a bulls foot then the next she is a pillar of wisdom depending on what day of the week it is [seemingly] ...............
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 11:26:58 PM
We are talking about the UK not Portugal. Here are the guidelines for the naming of suspects in the UK :
'If the police or another agency is investigating a person or the person is under arrest, this makes them a crime suspect. Media organisations, though, must be careful not to publish the identity (name or another detail identifying him/her) of a suspect at this stage, if they have been able to discover such information. This is because if the police investigation does not lead to a criminal prosecution then the suspect would be able to sue the organisation for libel.
This remains the case for reports or broadcasts which make it very clear that no prosecution has yet taken place (and thus the suspect could still be completely innocent). This is because such an, albeit factually correct report, creates an inference that the person might be guilty and so is defamatory to that suspect. Such an inference may turn out to be unfounded and the media organisation may be unable to defend it in a subsequent libel case.
However, there may be an official release of the identity of a person under investigation or under arrest by a spokesperson for the police, the CPS or other governmental agencies like local councils. In this instance, it is perfectly safe for a media organisation to publish this information as if it comes to a libel case, they can rely on the defence of qualified privilege (if all the requirements for this are met).
ACPO guidelines on police naming of suspects
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) issued a set of guidelines to the police on this subject. The guidelines stated that the police should not generally provide the names of people under investigation to the media. If they do not actually identify the suspect, the police are allowed to give some details such as age, occupation or where the suspect is from.
The ACPO guidelines also state that once an individual has been charged then the police can and will identify them to the media, usually providing name, age and occupation. There are certain exceptions; for instance this applies to adults (see other articles for juveniles). The official release of this information will include details of the charge and subsequent court appearances.
In what it terms ‘exceptional circumstances’, the ACPO guidelines accept that police may release the name of a suspect prior to a charge, if it is in the public interest to do so. Moreover, when a media organisation has already discovered the suspect’s name through investigative journalism and seek confirmation of it, the police are permitted to confirm the name.'
Can you please highlight the bit where it says the police are not permitted to name a suspect in case it jeopardizes the safety of any future conviction, as you have claimed? Many thanks.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 25, 2015, 11:29:35 PM
And there as me thinking that the recent court case had decided GA's book and hence the theories contained within had not impacted on the search.
Of course his book didn't have an effect on the searches which should have been happening in the golden hours and days after Madeleine's disappearance. It was what he actually did and what he actually failed to do which impinged on the search for her.
We have a thread in existence where one can post what Mr Amaral got right ... perhaps you should add to it, not many posters have.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 25, 2015, 11:30:45 PM
The point being made is there was a very good reason why Redwood couldn't name the McCanns, whether they were being investigated as suspects or not.
Who has ever suggested that he should have named the McCanns as suspects? Not me. But he could very easily have either deflected the question, or simply insisted that the question was never asked or broadcast in the first place. You have this fantasy that Redwood was put on the spot live on TV and had to quickly cobble together an answer to some direct question about the McCanns' status. Do you have any evidence that this was indeed the case?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2015, 11:36:49 PM
Can you please highlight the bit where it says the police are not permitted to name a suspect in case it jeopardizes the safety of any future conviction, as you have claimed? Many thanks.
it doesn't but what it does say is that when an investigation is ongoing the police cannot name who they have in their sights. So to look at that statement in the context of this case, even if SY had been investigating the McCanns at the time of his announcement Redwood would not have been able, legally, to divulge that to the press.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 25, 2015, 11:38:09 PM
Of course his book didn't have an effect on the searches which should have been happening in the golden hours and days after Madeleine's disappearance. It was what he actually did and what he actually failed to do which impinged on the search for her.
We have a thread in existence where one can post what Mr Amaral got right ... perhaps you should add to it, not many posters have.
How do reconcile that with a court case, brought about twelve months after Sr Amaral retired, the thrust of one element being the publication of the book and DVD had impaired the search?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2015, 11:41:38 PM
Who has ever suggested that he should have named the McCanns as suspects? Not me. But he could very easily have either deflected the question, or simply insisted that the question was never asked or broadcast in the first place. You have this fantasy that Redwood was put on the spot live on TV and had to quickly cobble together an answer to some direct question about the McCanns' status. Do you have any evidence that this was indeed the case?
So he deflects the question ' I'm sorry I can't answer that .' result : wild speculation He insists the question is never asked. The Daily Snail next day ' yesterday DCI Redwood refused to be drawn on whether the McCanns were being investigated at this time'.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on November 26, 2015, 12:02:45 AM
I don't think Redwood has ever named anyone, neither suspect nor witness, but then what did he ever give away?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 26, 2015, 12:07:42 AM
How do reconcile that with a court case, brought about twelve months after Sr Amaral retired, the thrust of one element being the publication of the book and DVD had impaired the search?
I am not referring either to the court case or to the book. I am attempting to address the the subject of the thread.
Madeleine is a missing child who has been declared dead without a shred of supporting evidence to that effect. The search for her at a time and place of the best chance of finding what had happened to her was abrogated in preference for securing a conviction.
It was a technique which had worked perfectly well in 'solving' the Cipriano case.
In Madeleine's case neither Robert Murat or Madeleine's parents were uneducated country folk.
Mr Amaral's adherence to his thesis is just one instance of actions which by their nature must have interfered with the search for Madeleine ...
Of the many professional opinions which have been expressed about Madeleine's case the Amaral theory is considered implausible. Not least by the current PJ and SY teams who are interested in finding who abducted Madeleine following leads, many of which were available at the time to the Amaral investigation. If his theory did not interfere with the search for her ... what other reason is there for that level of incompetence?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 26, 2015, 02:45:36 AM
It's surprising that no-one mentions pulling the sofa away from the wall to search behind it then pushing it back again.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 26, 2015, 02:56:20 AM
It's surprising that no-one mentions pulling the sofa away from the wall to search behind it then pushing it back again.
The sofa positioned in the living area in front of the window wall was the only piece of furniture in that room a child could hide behind. It is ludicrous to think that not a single civilian or police officer looked behind it & also behind the closed curtains.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 26, 2015, 03:17:51 AM
The sofa positioned in the living area in front of the window wall was the only piece of furniture in that room a child could hide behind. It is ludicrous to think that not a single civilian or police officer looked behind it & also behind the closed curtains.
But why does no-one mention pulling the sofa out in their statement?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 26, 2015, 03:26:25 AM
But why does no-one mention pulling the sofa out in their statement?
Was anyone other than Kate asked to itemise the furniture/objects they touched during the searches? The answer you seek would only be provided if the appropriate question was asked in the first place.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 26, 2015, 08:06:47 AM
So he deflects the question ' I'm sorry I can't answer that .' result : wild speculation He insists the question is never asked. The Daily Snail next day ' yesterday DCI Redwood refused to be drawn on whether the McCanns were being investigated at this time'.
And the legal ramifications of that would be...?
Absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 26, 2015, 08:17:13 AM
So he deflects the question ' I'm sorry I can't answer that .' result : wild speculation He insists the question is never asked. The Daily Snail next day ' yesterday DCI Redwood refused to be drawn on whether the McCanns were being investigated at this time'.
you will find that in those interviews any questions will have been agreed beforehand...Redwood could have simply told them not to ask the question. Obviously the fact that redwood said what he did bothers you and throws all your theories...that's because all your theories are wrong
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 26, 2015, 08:24:11 AM
you will find that in those interviews any questions will have been agreed beforehand...Redwood could have simply told them not to ask the question. Obviously the fact that redwood said what he did bothers you and throws all your theories...that's because all your theories are wrong
All Redwood amply demonstrated was that he knew nothing.
Just beliefs.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2015, 10:53:48 AM
I am not referring either to the court case or to the book. I am attempting to address the the subject of the thread.
Madeleine is a missing child who has been declared dead without a shred of supporting evidence to that effect. The search for her at a time and place of the best chance of finding what had happened to her was abrogated in preference for securing a conviction.
It was a technique which had worked perfectly well in 'solving' the Cipriano case.
In Madeleine's case neither Robert Murat or Madeleine's parents were uneducated country folk.
Mr Amaral's adherence to his thesis is just one instance of actions which by their nature must have interfered with the search for Madeleine ...
Of the many professional opinions which have been expressed about Madeleine's case the Amaral theory is considered implausible. Not least by the current PJ and SY teams who are interested in finding who abducted Madeleine following leads, many of which were available at the time to the Amaral investigation. If his theory did not interfere with the search for her ... what other reason is there for that level of incompetence?
Only the courts can do that after an application has been made. Presumably you can demonstrate which court made the declaration? Otherwise your assertion is merely just that, an assertion.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 26, 2015, 11:05:14 AM
Only the courts can do that after an application has been made. Presumably you can demonstrate which court made the declaration? Otherwise your assertion is merely just that, an assertion.
yes....its the Court Of Public Opinion...the only court in the UK where the death penalty still exists
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 26, 2015, 11:14:44 AM
Only the courts can do that after an application has been made. Presumably you can demonstrate which court made the declaration? Otherwise your assertion is merely just that, an assertion.
What is this 'thing' you people have about scoring through posts?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2015, 03:51:47 PM
I did not read your post ... nor shall I till you stop playing juvenile games.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough ... I find scoring wholesale through what I have posted rude and offensive as it is no doubt intended to be ... do please grow up and try to show a bit more respect.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2015, 04:13:29 PM
I did not read your post ... nor shall I till you stop playing juvenile games.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough ... I find scoring wholesale through what I have posted rude and offensive as it is no doubt intended to be ... do please grow up and try to show a bit more respect.
The solution is in your own remit. Stop posting on the same principle as Parkinson's Law. Respect is earned not demanded.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2015, 04:21:46 PM
The solution is in your own remit. Stop posting on the same principle as Parkinson's Law. Respect is earned not demanded.
Forum rules demand it.
I have no control over the actions of other posters on this forum ... if they wish to behave offensively towards me that reflects on them ... not me.
It is interesting however that the adopted technique of 'debating' what I post is to deface the post and suggest the fault is mine for such delinquent behaviour.
No surprises there with a well tested practice over eight + years of excusing the offender by blaming those offended against.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 26, 2015, 05:17:12 PM
I have no control over the actions of other posters on this forum ... if they wish to behave offensively towards me that reflects on them ... not me.
It is interesting however that the adopted technique of 'debating' what I post is to deface the post and suggest the fault is mine for such delinquent behaviour.
No surprises there with a well tested practice over eight + years of excusing the offender by blaming those offended against.
Don't you realize other participants on here find your posts rude and arrogant, to them ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2015, 05:24:19 PM
I have no control over the actions of other posters on this forum ... if they wish to behave offensively towards me that reflects on them ... not me.
It is interesting however that the adopted technique of 'debating' what I post is to deface the post and suggest the fault is mine for such delinquent behaviour.
No surprises there with a well tested practice over eight + years of excusing the offender by blaming those offended against.
In my case I viewed it more as deleting irrelevant dross to highlight the paucity of substance rather than delinquent behaviour.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 26, 2015, 05:30:31 PM
Who knows? I know for one, as does anyone with an ounce of sense.
Bottom line Alfie. In accordance with British law Redwood would not legally have been allowed to admit the McCanns were under investigation, even if they were.
You can continue to insult anyone who understands that and you very well may be correct about the McCanns not being suspects but you cannot be certain of it simply by relying on what Redwood said. He had no choice.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 26, 2015, 05:58:59 PM
Bottom line Alfie. In accordance with British law Redwood would not legally have been allowed to admit the McCanns were under investigation, even if they were.
You can continue to insult anyone who understands that and you very well may be correct about the McCanns not being suspects but you cannot be certain of it simply by relying on what Redwood said. He had no choice.
But he is allowed to tell a big fat LIE to the GBP! Seriously? Do you think that whenever we read that the McCanns are being kept up to date with SY investigations - those are big fat lies too? And it's all part of a devious plan to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security - and then SY are going to pounce on them - and arrest them?
Faith - I think your deep desire for Andy Redwoods statement saying they are not suspects NOT to be true - has caused your imagination to run away with you.
They are not suspects or even persons of interest. Neither are their friends. Anyone who thinks that is ever going to change is in for a big disappointment IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2015, 05:59:18 PM
In my case I viewed it more as deleting irrelevant dross to highlight the paucity of substance rather than delinquent behaviour.
A trend has been introduced whereby my posts have been treated with discourtesy by other posters who have adopted the technique employed by you.
I asked Mercury to desist only yesterday.
Am I to believe that these are random incidents ... or am I to believe that these are examples of bullying and trolling which if not organised are being copied.
In future I will probably ask Admin to be the judge rather than appeal to better natures which your post above show may very well be lacking.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 26, 2015, 06:15:55 PM
But he is allowed to tell a big fat LIE to the GBP! Seriously? Do you think that whenever we read that the McCanns are being kept up to date with SY investigations - those are big fat lies too? And it's all part of a devious plan to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security - and then SY are going to pounce on them - and arrest them?
Faith - I think your deep desire for Andy Redwoods statement saying they are not suspects NOT to be true - has caused your imagination to run away with you.
They are not suspects or even persons of interest. Neither are their friends. Anyone who thinks that is ever going to change is in for a big disappointment IMO.
So Benice do you think legally Redwood could have intimated the McCanns were parsons of interest ? Wasn't Karen Matthews treated as the victim of a terrible crime even while we now know she was being investigated ? Weren't we told in that case too the the mother of the missing girl was being kept up to date with developments ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 26, 2015, 06:31:53 PM
Bottom line Alfie. In accordance with British law Redwood would not legally have been allowed to admit the McCanns were under investigation, even if they were.
You can continue to insult anyone who understands that and you very well may be correct about the McCanns not being suspects but you cannot be certain of it simply by relying on what Redwood said. He had no choice.
What is this law you keep going on about, specifically?
Redwood had the choice to make no comment or to be non commital. Instead he made an unequivocal statement which you are still struggling to come to terms with.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 26, 2015, 06:36:14 PM
What is this law you keep going on about, specifically?
Redwood had the choice to make no comment or to be non commital. Instead he made an unequivocal statement which you are still struggling to come to terms with.
All questions would have agreed before ...redwood would have known he was going to be asked the question and would have agreed to be asked the question being asked
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 26, 2015, 06:44:09 PM
All questions would have agreed before ...redwood would have known he was going to be asked the question and would have agreed to be asked the question being asked
Redwood is no longer of any consequence.
He came, 'investigated' , found nothing and then retired.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 26, 2015, 06:58:37 PM
I have no control over the actions of other posters on this forum ... if they wish to behave offensively towards me that reflects on them ... not me.
It is interesting however that the adopted technique of 'debating' what I post is to deface the post and suggest the fault is mine for such delinquent behaviour.
No surprises there with a well tested practice over eight + years of excusing the offender by blaming those offended against.
Maybe if you removed the faux outrage and off topic sound bites and stuck to factual counter arguments you may get more respect from other posters.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2015, 07:10:06 PM
Thank you for that gem ... Moderator??? Nothing at all to say to those breaking forum rules.
As long as they are not replacing words, altering word order or changing meaning, removing or scoring through paragraphs that are not being responded to is fine. Same goes for all posters.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2015, 07:40:27 PM
So you didn't understand from Brietta's post who had actually pre-empted any official court hearing to declare Madeleine dead?
Of course I understood !.
But simply put that person had no authority to declare Madeleine McCann dead , even if he did make such declaration, and the opinion carried no weight at law.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2015, 07:51:00 PM
As long as they are replacing words, altering word order or changing meaning, removing or scoring through paragraphs that are not being responded to is fine. Same goes for all posters.
Hmmm ... that makes sense ... not.
So what happens if I replace a posters words? What happens if I alter word order? Change the meaning? Remove a paragraph? Or score through a paragraph or as has been done as regards myself ... every paragraph?
Is that really fine?
Are you quite sure you've got that entirely correct ... or am I misreading your post?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 26, 2015, 07:55:52 PM
But simply put that person had no authority to declare Madeleine McCann dead , even if he did make such declaration, and the opinion carried no weight at law.
He DID make that declaration. He told the world. It formulated the path of the investigation so it must have carried some weight at law. He later put that declaration in print. Isn't that what all this is about?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 26, 2015, 08:07:44 PM
A trend has been introduced whereby my posts have been treated with discourtesy by other posters who have adopted the technique employed by you.
I asked Mercury to desist only yesterday.
Am I to believe that these are random incidents ... or am I to believe that these are examples of bullying and trolling which if not organised are being copied.
In future I will probably ask Admin to be the judge rather than appeal to better natures which your post above show may very well be lacking.
You are becoming slightly paranoid IMO imagining organised so called bullying and trolling (whilst hypocritically ignoring your own less than preferred model behaviour)
But it does suit elements of your whole raison d'etre here I guess, so understandable.
Now,
Once you desist from not respecting other posters, desist from your patronising and pontificating derogatory and accusatory remarks, and frankly some outrageous statements, I might, just, start to consider your request.Not a promise though.
I also suggest you read up on Jung and projection! You might learn something, whch is always a good thing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2015, 08:09:54 PM
But simply put that person had no authority to declare Madeleine McCann dead , even if he did make such declaration, and the opinion carried no weight at law.
The opinion may carry no weight at law but it carries a great deal of weight amongst some posters on this forum and many others.
It also carries a great deal of weight amongst those who have pulled every trick in their book to impede the Drs McCann in their search for Madeleine with the ultimate aim of having the present search the genesis of which they strove against with every fibre of their being ... curtailed.
Really weird behaviour for people attesting all they want is "Justice for Madeleine!"
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 26, 2015, 08:20:51 PM
The opinion may carry no weight at law but it carries a great deal of weight amongst some posters on this forum and many others.
It also carries a great deal of weight amongst those who have pulled every trick in their book to impede the Drs McCann in their search for Madeleine with the ultimate aim of having the present search which they strove curtailed.
Really weird behaviour for people attesting all they want is "Justice for Madeleine!"
People form opinions for a variety of reasons, usually never just ONE, ie "Amaral and his team thought x y z so I just believed it"
Insulting at best, laughable on many levels as well.
%56&
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 26, 2015, 08:23:27 PM
She, like the mccanns and their followers seems unable to grasp that many people made up their own minds about the mccanns, and more are coming to that realization that their story doesn't hold up to close examination.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 26, 2015, 08:29:01 PM
She, like the mccanns and their followers seems unable to grasp that many people made up their own minds about the mccanns, and more are coming to that realization that their story doesn't hold up to close examination.
They need scapegoats desperately, the more the merrier, and that is what they have been doing for years
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2015, 08:31:17 PM
You are becoming slightly paranoid IMO imagining organised so called bullying and trolling (whilst hypocritically ignoring your own less than preferred model behaviour)
But it does suit elements of your whole raison d'etre here I guess, so understandable.
Now,
Once you desist from not respecting other posters, desist from your patronising and pontificating derogatory and accusatory remarks, and frankly some outrageous statements, I might, just, start to consider your request.Not a promise though.
I also suggest you read up on Jung and projection! You might learn something, whch is always a good thing.
Isn't it amazing how apt some of these couthy sayings are ... one for every occasion
So now that you've got that off your chest perhaps we can get back on topic ... which if I remember correctly wasn't me and my perceived shortcomings but the actual shortcomings in the search for Madeleine McCann. It is my opinion that deciding very early into the search for her that Madeleine was dead and her parents involved in hiding her body ... interfered somewhat in the search for a living child. I'm sure you will disagree with that synopsis.
So what is your opinion?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 26, 2015, 08:39:34 PM
Isn't it amazing how apt some of these couthy sayings are ... one for every occasion
So now that you've got that off your chest perhaps we can get back on topic ... which if I remember correctly wasn't me and my perceived shortcomings but the actual shortcomings in the search for Madeleine McCann. It is my opinion that deciding very early into the search for her that Madeleine was dead and her parents involved in hiding her body ... interfered somewhat in the search for a living child. I'm sure you will disagree with that synopsis.
So what is your opinion?
1) You recall incorrectly, the thread is about the Mccanns very limited search, rightly or wrongly 2) You are also wrong IMO in promoting the myth that the police did not search or they ignored leads or didnt follow up on thusands of sightngs, just skim reading the files proves this 3) No one stated very early on in the case that Madeleine had died in the flat and the parents were involved, ths happened months later, what happened was what normally happens in these cases, the parents are suspected when a child is not found and there is no evidence of an intruder
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2015, 08:40:42 PM
She, like the mccanns and their followers seems unable to grasp that many people made up their own minds about the mccanns, and more are coming to that realization that their story doesn't hold up to close examination.
That is attacking the poster ... not the post ... therefore qualifies imho as an ad hominem. As you won't have had the opportunity to read my post it won't be reported on this occasion for admin to decide.
But I have had enough of this nonsense.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 26, 2015, 08:41:00 PM
Isn't it amazing how apt some of these couthy sayings are ... one for every occasion
So now that you've got that off your chest perhaps we can get back on topic ... which if I remember correctly wasn't me and my perceived shortcomings but the actual shortcomings in the search for Madeleine McCann. It is my opinion that deciding very early into the search for her that Madeleine was dead and her parents involved in hiding her body ... interfered somewhat in the search for a living child. I'm sure you will disagree with that synopsis.
So what is your opinion?
Fascinating.
You fail to grasp or admit that many people searched for Madeleine extensively and for many weeks after her disappearance, that doesn't even count the publicity this case has gained worldwide.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 26, 2015, 08:50:05 PM
That is attacking the poster ... not the post ... therefore qualifies imho as an ad hominem. As you won't have had the opportunity to read my post it won't be reported on this occasion for admin to decide.
But I have had enough of this nonsense.
Make no mistake - You are in no position whatsoever to complain about people attacking a poster and not the post when you do it all the bleedin time......yes, I agree with yur sentiment....had enough of this nonsense!
@)(++(*
Cant stand the heat? Stay out of the kitchen! And stop dishng it out if you dont want it back, its as easy as abc
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2015, 08:54:58 PM
You fail to grasp or admit that many people searched for Madeleine extensively and for many weeks after her disappearance, that doesn't even count the publicity this case has gained worldwide.
Don't be ridiculous. I know you are familiar with my posting history and I give credit where it is due, particularly with regard to volunteer searchers so please do not make inaccurate statements.
I thought the worldwide publicity Madeleine's case has achieved was one of your major beefs against the Drs McCann, it certainly seemed to be the case as far as Mr Amaral was concerned.
So there was me misrepresenting you ... just as you misrepresent me ... you are actually delighted with the publicity Madeleine's parents generated on her behalf after all.
I will bear that in mind for future reference.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 26, 2015, 08:56:04 PM
She, like the mccanns and their followers seems unable to grasp that many people made up their own minds about the mccanns, and more are coming to that realization that their story doesn't hold up to close examination.
But we are all appendages of some evil borg....just another scapegoating exercise....youre black therefore i am white seems to be the tall and the short of it...bit like the Irish troubles of yesteryear.....somethng the Mccanns created in their life and never felt the need to stop but actively encouraged it IMHO
And Gerald commented around the tne if Brendas death, that he wants more people to be made examples of ie prosecuting for giving their opinions.....like thats gonna help find hs daughter........or make him a more sympathetic character, always shootng themselves in the foot it seems at every turn
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2015, 08:57:40 PM
He DID make that declaration. He told the world. It formulated the path of the investigation so it must have carried some weight at law. He later put that declaration in print. Isn't that what all this is about?
I think he said that "the conclusion of he and his officers was":................ rather than a categorical statement. But let's play devils avocado for a moment and say he did make that categorical statement.
A retired detective writing a book in a severe mardy as a result of being flung off the case, the book having sales of about 250,000. Draw your own conclusions as to how earth shattering that unauthorised declaration will be. It took the Drs McCann a twelve month to getting around to doing anything about it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 26, 2015, 09:01:21 PM
Don't be ridiculous. I know you are familiar with my posting history and I give credit where it is due, particularly with regard to volunteer searchers so please do not make inaccurate statements.
I thought the worldwide publicity Madeleine's case has achieved was one of your major beefs against the Drs McCann, it certainly seemed to be the case as far as Mr Amaral was concerned.
So there was me misrepresenting you ... just as you misrepresent me ... you are actually delighted with the publicity Madeleine's parents generated on her behalf after all.
I will bear that in mind for future reference.
The worldwide publicity merely demonstrates quite amply the ludicrous assertion that the 'search' for Madeleine was impeded.
It also magnifies one of the flaws in the mccann case against Amaral.
One of the others being of course, the crime has not been determined.
Beliefs don't count, evidence does.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 26, 2015, 09:08:25 PM
I think he said that "the conclusion of he and his officers was":................ rather than a categorical statement. But let's play devils avocado for a moment and say he did make that categorical statement.
A retired detective writing a book in a severe mardy as a result of being flung off the case, the book having sales of about 250,000. Draw your own conclusions as to how earth shattering that unauthorised declaration will be. It took the Drs McCann a twelve month to getting around to doing anything about it.
They poo pooed it and laughed over it, at the time aand yes, waited a year almost before taking action But it was never about the money of course €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Read and watch
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id163.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2015, 09:09:44 PM
The opinion may carry no weight at law but it carries a great deal of weight amongst some posters on this forum and many others.
It also carries a great deal of weight amongst those who have pulled every trick in their book to impede the Drs McCann in their search for Madeleine with the ultimate aim of having the present search the genesis of which they strove against with every fibre of their being ... curtailed.
Really weird behaviour for people attesting all they want is "Justice for Madeleine!"
I cannot answer for others. Only me. I would like to see guilty parties apprehended and punished with the full force of the law. The opinion of Sr Amaral carries no weight at law; what this forum or other fora uncle Tom Cobley and few more others think is irrelevant unless of course you believe there is a vast international conspiracy to do the Drs McCann down.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 26, 2015, 09:16:50 PM
I cannot answer for others. Only me. I would like to see guilty parties apprehended and punished with the full force of the law. The opinion of Sr Amaral carries no weight at law; what this forum or other fora uncle Tom Cobley and few more others think is irrelevant unless of course you believe there is a vast international conspiracy to do the Drs McCann down.
Brietta believes and or promotes that sceptics want to exonerate/protect guilty parties, such is her and her cohorts shameful sham!!
Even a totally biased moderator on here has suggested amaral took back handers for protecting an abductor.....others suggested amaral planted cadaver odour, the desperation is truly astounding!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 26, 2015, 09:19:34 PM
I cannot answer for others. Only me. I would like to see guilty parties apprehended and punished with the full force of the law. The opinion of Sr Amaral carries no weight at law; what this forum or other fora uncle Tom Cobley and few more others think is irrelevant unless of course you believe there is a vast international conspiracy to do the Drs McCann down.
I think there is a tiny conspiracy to do the McCanns down....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2015, 09:39:44 PM
I cannot answer for others. Only me. I would like to see guilty parties apprehended and punished with the full force of the law. The opinion of Sr Amaral carries no weight at law; what this forum or other fora uncle Tom Cobley and few more others think is irrelevant unless of course you believe there is a vast international conspiracy to do the Drs McCann down.
There is a coterie who apparently live and breath "doing the Drs McCann down", I'm sure you will agree. Apparently they are mainly British based and they may be part of an international conspiracy which by no stretch of the imagination could ever be described as "vast".
Mr Amaral made an excellent and lucrative media career which has apparently convinced Portugal that Madeleine is dead and the Drs McCann complicit. He may have left people scratching their heads somewhat with ... perhaps his Ace?? ... the coffin invasion of the old lady who was later cremated.
Who in Portugal is going to give a second thought to suspicions about a friend a neighbour or a relation ... when the culpability of those who 'dunnit' has been so well promoted and known for over eight years.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 26, 2015, 09:46:05 PM
There is a coterie who apparently live and breath "doing the Drs McCann down", I'm sure you will agree. Apparently they are mainly British based and they may be part of an international conspiracy which by no stretch of the imagination could ever be described as "vast".
Mr Amaral made an excellent and lucrative media career which has apparently convinced Portugal that Madeleine is dead and the Drs McCann complicit. He may have left people scratching their heads somewhat with ... perhaps his Ace?? ... the coffin invasion of the old lady who was later cremated.
Who in Portugal is going to give a second thought to suspicions about a friend a neighbour or a relation ... when the culpability of those who 'dunnit' has been so well promoted and known for over eight years.
Sometimes words fail.
This is one of those occasions..…........
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 26, 2015, 09:47:25 PM
There is a coterie who apparently live and breath "doing the Drs McCann down", I'm sure you will agree. Apparently they are mainly British based and they may be part of an international conspiracy which by no stretch of the imagination could ever be described as "vast".
Mr Amaral made an excellent and lucrative media career which has apparently convinced Portugal that Madeleine is dead and the Drs McCann complicit. He may have left people scratching their heads somewhat with ... perhaps his Ace?? ... the coffin invasion of the old lady who was later cremated.
Who in Portugal is going to give a second thought to suspicions about a friend a neighbour or a relation ... when the culpability of those who 'dunnit' has been so well promoted and known for over eight years.
great post
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2015, 09:53:02 PM
There is a coterie who apparently live and breath "doing the Drs McCann down", I'm sure you will agree. Apparently they are mainly British based and they may be part of an international conspiracy which by no stretch of the imagination could ever be described as "vast".
Mr Amaral made an excellent and lucrative media career which has apparently convinced Portugal that Madeleine is dead and the Drs McCann complicit. He may have left people scratching their heads somewhat with ... perhaps his Ace?? ... the coffin invasion of the old lady who was later cremated.
Who in Portugal is going to give a second thought to suspicions about a friend a neighbour or a relation ... when the culpability of those who 'dunnit' has been so well promoted and known for over eight years.
Well "coterie" is a small select band with similar beliefs accent on the small. Why keep banging on about Sr Amaral ?. He is yesterdays man and frankly in my view he and the Drs McCann deserve each other. As for the last paragraph are you suggesting the Portuguese judiciary are not taking it seriously?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 26, 2015, 09:57:38 PM
There is a coterie who apparently live and breath "doing the Drs McCann down", I'm sure you will agree. Apparently they are mainly British based and they may be part of an international conspiracy which by no stretch of the imagination could ever be described as "vast".
Mr Amaral made an excellent and lucrative media career which has apparently convinced Portugal that Madeleine is dead and the Drs McCann complicit. He may have left people scratching their heads somewhat with ... perhaps his Ace?? ... the coffin invasion of the old lady who was later cremated.
Who in Portugal is going to give a second thought to suspicions about a friend a neighbour or a relation ... when the culpability of those who 'dunnit' has been so well promoted and known for over eight years.
In red font cite please. Evidence!
You give too much credit to Amaral. Many tens of thousands of people believed Maddie to be dead. Long before Amaral mentioned it. I know I was watching a lot of bloggs and reports and the responses. There were of course many different reasons given for believing this including: the parents being involved.
As for Amaral's lucrative media career, Bit of hypocrisy going on here. McCanns have made and spent millions on the back of their vile behaviour towards their children. They became marketing ploys!
1. the fund being set up- using cute Maddie pics to gain sympathy- and deflect any blame on them as parents. 2. trying to claim money from Amaral for their distraught children even the one who is missing! 3. Used royalty, pope, media stars,high up political figures to push their agenda... media savvy they were from day one!
They travelled the world, to tell their story.... Yawn.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 26, 2015, 10:03:10 PM
You give too much credit to Amaral. Many tens of thousands of people believed Maddie to be dead. Long before Amaral mentioned it. I know I was watching a lot of bloggs and reports and the responses. There were of course many different reasons given for believing this including: the parents being involved.
As for Amaral's lucrative media career, Bit of hypocrisy going on here. McCanns have made and spent millions on the back of their vile behaviour towards their children. They became marketing ploys!
1. the fund being set up- using cute Maddie pics to gain sympathy- and deflect any blame on them as parents. 2. trying to claim money from Amaral for their distraught children even the one who is missing! 3. Used royalty, pope, media stars,high up political figures to push their agenda... media savvy they were from day one!
They travelled the world, to tell their story.... Yawn.
shining Luz who lives in Luz has confirmed this
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 26, 2015, 10:23:06 PM
No, shining has not confirmed this at all. As they have no evidence it was Amaral's book and nothing else which made the locals think Maddie was dead. Was a survey done?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 26, 2015, 10:58:06 PM
What is this law you keep going on about, specifically?
Redwood had the choice to make no comment or to be non commital. Instead he made an unequivocal statement which you are still struggling to come to terms with.
I think Redwood would have preferred not to answer the question at all but unfortunately that option was not open to him.
I posted the police procedure with regard to naming suspects last night.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 27, 2015, 12:37:48 AM
I think Redwood would have preferred not to answer the question at all but unfortunately that option was not open to him.
I posted the police procedure with regard to naming suspects last night.
Your first point conveniently ignores the fact that Redwood would have had complete contol and veto over any questions put to him during the pre-recorded interview. Your second point does not answer my question regarding which law it is that supposedly makes it illegal for police to name suspects?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 27, 2015, 01:58:05 AM
The sofa positioned in the living area in front of the window wall was the only piece of furniture in that room a child could hide behind. It is ludicrous to think that not a single civilian or police officer looked behind it & also behind the closed curtains.
It would have been ludicrous to suggest that police in Bllingham 1989 failed to search the premises completely. But they didn't.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 27, 2015, 02:18:05 AM
It would have been ludicrous to suggest that police in Bllingham 1989 failed to search the premises completely. But they didn't.
The police have long since wised up to secreting bodies behind bath panels. We can but wonder why no-one smelt the decaying remains of Julie. However, I think Eddie confirmed a corpse had never been in the bathroom at 5a.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 27, 2015, 02:30:28 AM
The police have long since wised up to secreting bodies behind bath panels. We can but wonder why no-one smelt the decaying remains of Julie. However, I think Eddie confirmed a corpse had never been in the bathroom at 5a.
They have certainly not wised up to the importance of a complete inside search - there have been lots of similar cases since 1989.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 27, 2015, 02:47:35 AM
They have certainly not wised up to the importance of a complete inside search - there have been lots of similar cases since 1989.
I'm more concerned about the apartments & houses the GNR/PJ didn't actually search at all & relied on the occupants' words that they hadn't seen Madeleine. As in the case of Claudia Lawrence, the police have said that they know people lied to them in the weeks after she went missing & people are still lying. There is more than one person who knows what happened to Claudia, just as with Madeleine but it will be very difficult for the police to have a solid case without finding the victim.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 27, 2015, 06:11:16 AM
The police have long since wised up to secreting bodies behind bath panels. We can but wonder why no-one smelt the decaying remains of Julie. However, I think Eddie confirmed a corpse had never been in the bathroom at 5a.
Interesting. So you do value the dog indications rather than call Grime a fraud and all alerts as meaningless. Makes a refreshing change to ignoring relevant evidence/burying ones head in proverbial sand.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 27, 2015, 07:29:59 AM
Interesting. So you do value the dog indications rather than call Grime a fraud and all alerts as meaningless. Makes a refreshing change to ignoring relevant evidence/burying ones head in proverbial sand.
I certainly value the dogs and haver never called Grime a fraud...but I understand them a lot more than most. Unconfirmed alerts are meaningless...Grime never said the dogs probably alerted to cadaver odour as you recently claimed
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 27, 2015, 08:20:18 AM
So what happens if I replace a posters words? What happens if I alter word order? Change the meaning? Remove a paragraph? Or score through a paragraph or as has been done as regards myself ... every paragraph?
Is that really fine?
Are you quite sure you've got that entirely correct ... or am I misreading your post?
Missed a not, modified now.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 27, 2015, 08:36:12 AM
There is a coterie who apparently live and breath "doing the Drs McCann down", I'm sure you will agree. Apparently they are mainly British based and they may be part of an international conspiracy which by no stretch of the imagination could ever be described as "vast".
Mr Amaral made an excellent and lucrative media career which has apparently convinced Portugal that Madeleine is dead and the Drs McCann complicit. He may have left people scratching their heads somewhat with ... perhaps his Ace?? ... the coffin invasion of the old lady who was later cremated.
Who in Portugal is going to give a second thought to suspicions about a friend a neighbour or a relation ... when the culpability of those who 'dunnit' has been so well promoted and known for over eight years.
I agree Brietta. Especially as Amaral had a head start with his book when it came to public opinion- due to the disgraceful smear campaign which had already been conducted via Portuguese media against the McCanns - starting with 'They were swingers' - and which no doubt influenced the opinions of many Portuguese people - in the same way as a smear campaign influenced public opinion against Leonor Cipriano.
A major part of 'searching' is to keep the missing childs profile high in the public's mind. I wonder how many Portuguese people didn't give her child or Madeleine another thought once they had been convinced that they were dead.
However - I cannot believe that even his most avid Portuguese supporters were not rendered speechless on hearing his... 'body in a coffin' .....'theory' - which he actually put forward as a serious proposition. I know I was. Jaw-dropping stuff indeed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 08:54:03 AM
Freudian slip perhaps. But never mind ... 'Tomorrow is another day' and that was yesterday so today is tomorrow and time to cut the silliness of what really doesn't matter a jot.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 27, 2015, 08:55:54 AM
In all the forums I have used the rules are that when replying to a post - you quote the whole post- and then if you only want to reply to a part of it - you highlight (bold) that part.
Clear and simple and doesn't offend anyone - whereas striking out can be construed as rude, and only quoting part of a post and leaving out parts of it - can result in a different impression being given from the one intended in the post as a whole.
As it's just as quick - in fact probably quicker to 'highlight and bold' the part you want to reply to rather than 'highlight and delete' parts of a post or 'strike out 'parts of a post that you don't want to reply to - I don't see why there should be a problem. It works fine everywhere else and doesn't offend anyone.
Could we have some clear instruction on this please?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 09:14:02 AM
Interesting. So you do value the dog indications rather than call Grime a fraud and all alerts as meaningless. Makes a refreshing change to ignoring relevant evidence/burying ones head in proverbial sand.
I have never called Martin Grime "a fraud" for the simple reason I do not think he is one.
He is an accredited professional dog handler whose team was called in to search for a missing child and whose work was seriously misrepresented.
MSM was full of it at the time all based on leaked information which was subsequently discovered to be untrue with the release of the actual FSS results. However the damage was done as can be seen from countless internet 'discussions' ~ comments accompanying donations on Mr Amaral's GFM page ~ the countless 'dog' threads on our forum etc etc
It is beyond reason to assume all of that did not have some adverse effect on the search for Madeleine, particularly in Portugal where it mattered most.
**Snip Traces of blood found in Gerry and Kate McCanns' hire car and holiday flat DID belong to Madeleine, it has been claimed.
It reflects detectives' belief that she is dead and her parents disposed of her body.
Tests carried out at a UK laboratory confirmed beyond doubt that the blood was that of the toddler, a Portuguese newspaper reported. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506725/Blood-McCanns-hire-car-DID-come-Madeleine.html#ixzz3sgHGLtBj
**Snip 11 September: Portuguese police play down reports that DNA evidence with a 100% match to Madeleine was found in her parents' hire car. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13386785
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 27, 2015, 09:18:36 AM
I have never called Martin Grime "a fraud" for the simple reason I do not think he is one.
He is an accredited professional dog handler whose team was called in to search for a missing child and whose work was seriously misrepresented.
MSM was full of it at the time all based on leaked information which was subsequently discovered to be untrue with the release of the actual FSS results. However the damage was done as can be seen from countless internet 'discussions' ~ comments accompanying donations on Mr Amaral's GFM page ~ the countless 'dog' threads on our forum etc etc
It is beyond reason to assume all of that did not have some adverse effect on the search for Madeleine, particularly in Portugal where it mattered most.
**Snip Traces of blood found in Gerry and Kate McCanns' hire car and holiday flat DID belong to Madeleine, it has been claimed.
It reflects detectives' belief that she is dead and her parents disposed of her body.
Tests carried out at a UK laboratory confirmed beyond doubt that the blood was that of the toddler, a Portuguese newspaper reported. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506725/Blood-McCanns-hire-car-DID-come-Madeleine.html#ixzz3sgHGLtBj
**Snip 11 September: Portuguese police play down reports that DNA evidence with a 100% match to Madeleine was found in her parents' hire car. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13386785
When has the accidental death scenario been disproved ?
What was the 'adverse' effect on the search ?
Even now, you either won't accept or fail to realize that people made up their own minds about what happened, irrespective of Amaral.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 09:50:06 AM
When has the accidental death scenario been disproved ?
What was the 'adverse' effect on the search ?
Even now, you either won't accept or fail to realize that people made up their own minds about what happened, irrespective of Amaral.
How does one make up one's own mind in a vacuum? One can only consider by using information received. Unfortunately in the initial stages and until the release of the files ... much of that information being fed into the public domain was just plain wrong.
There is no way it could have failed to impinge on attitudes towards the search for Madeleine in the early days of her disappearance when a search for was undoubtedly the most productive time for everyone to be on the alert for any clue or suspicion.
Kate and Gerry McCann: What did you do last summer?
Apart from wash the curtains... wash Cuddlecat... move the sofa... put dirty nappies and rotting meat in the boot of the hire car... wash the car and leave the boot lid open... etc ... etc ... etc
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 27, 2015, 09:56:23 AM
How does one make up one's own mind in a vacuum? One can only consider by using information received. Unfortunately in the initial stages and until the release of the files ... much of that information being fed into the public domain was just plain wrong.
There is no way it could have failed to impinge on attitudes towards the search for Madeleine in the early days of her disappearance when a search for was undoubtedly the most productive time for everyone to be on the alert for any clue or suspicion.
Kate and Gerry McCann: What did you do last summer?
Apart from wash the curtains... wash Cuddlecat... move the sofa... put dirty nappies and rotting meat in the boot of the hire car... wash the car and leave the boot lid open... etc ... etc ... etc
The same can be said for abduction, which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans, without a jot of evidence to prove that one happened.
You omit, as per normal, anything which goes against doctrine, and merely type the mccanns mantra of abduction.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2015, 10:20:53 AM
Your first point conveniently ignores the fact that Redwood would have had complete contol and veto over any questions put to him during the pre-recorded interview. Your second point does not answer my question regarding which law it is that supposedly makes it illegal for police to name suspects?
Firstly have you any evidence the interview was pre-recorded and secondly I have already provided the information you requested re: police guidelines on naming suspects.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 10:28:46 AM
The same can be said for abduction, which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans, without a jot of evidence to prove that one happened.
You omit, as per normal, anything which goes against doctrine, and merely type the mccanns mantra of abduction.
Absolutely. Exactly the same influences apply for Madeleine's abduction "which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans"
Where on earth did the information come from to enable people to make that assessment? The usual place ... leaks from the PJ to the Portuguese press where the lurid headlines formed opinions at the time and for some reason I can't work out ... continue to influence some even today.
JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends.
Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias:
"Headline: a badly told story."
We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped.
To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go.
The same can be said for abduction, which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans, without a jot of evidence to prove that one happened.
You omit, as per normal, anything which goes against doctrine, and merely type the mccanns mantra of abduction.
Your constant repetitive claim that McCanns supporters cannot form their own opinions but are merely blindly following a 'doctrine' is clearly preposterous to anyone reading this forum. Unlike yourself those 'supporters' do actually discuss the case in detail - and also provide evidence to back up their opinions/claims . On the other hand it would appear that you would rather stick pins in your eyes than do the same. Why is that Stephen - if you are so sure that your opinions are right?
Why are you not trying to persuade people to believe your theory is the correct one - by providing your reasons for why you hold that opinion. Just slagging off people who disagree with you day after day does nothing to further your cause and has nothing to do with debate imo.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 27, 2015, 10:31:24 AM
Absolutely. Exactly the same influences apply for Madeleine's abduction "which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans"
Where on earth did the information come from to enable people to make that assessment? The usual place ... leaks from the PJ to the Portuguese press where the lurid headlines formed opinions at the time and for some reason I can't work out ... continue to influence some even today.
JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends.
Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias:
"Headline: a badly told story."
We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped.
To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go.
Your constant repetitive claim that McCanns supporters cannot form their own opinions but are merely blindly following a 'doctrine' is clearly preposterous to anyone reading this forum. Unlike yourself those 'supporters' do actually discuss the case in detail - and also provide evidence to back up their opinions/claims . On the other hand it would appear that you would rather stick pins in your eyes than do the same. Why is that Stephen - if you are so sure that your opinions are right?
Why are you not trying to persuade people to believe your theory is the correct one - by providing your reasons for why you hold that opinion. Just slagging off people who disagree with you day after day does nothing to further your cause and has nothing to do with debate imo.
It is known where the supporters discuss the details.
It is also known, courtesy of the Leverson inquiry, that the mccanns have people 'monitoring' the internet.
As to 'slagging off people', I have rarely initiated it on here, but if someone is prepared to make personal attacks, then I will Admin deal with them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 27, 2015, 11:00:15 AM
In all the forums I have used the rules are that when replying to a post - you quote the whole post- and then if you only want to reply to a part of it - you highlight (bold) that part.
Clear and simple and doesn't offend anyone - whereas striking out can be construed as rude, and only quoting part of a post and leaving out parts of it - can result in a different impression being given from the one intended in the post as a whole.
As it's just as quick - in fact probably quicker to 'highlight and bold' the part you want to reply to rather than 'highlight and delete' parts of a post or 'strike out 'parts of a post that you don't want to reply to - I don't see why there should be a problem. It works fine everywhere else and doesn't offend anyone.
Could we have some clear instruction on this please?
It is long established netiquette that it is ok to just quote parts of a post as long as that part stands on its own and doesn't depend on the rest of the post for meaning.
P.S. It is frequently done by other members of the forum from both sides.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
It was the UK police who told the PJ to investigate the mccanns.
Likewise, in any missing children cases, investigating the parents is a matter of course.
We have discussed this many, many times on the forum and you are perpetuating a myth while demonstrating that it was necessary for the UK police to take the extraordinary initiative of instructing the investigation on basic investigative procedures.
However it will be remembered by you that the Portuguese authorities declared unequivocally that there was no evidence to justify the Drs McCann being constituted arguidos and no evidence they had any hand in Madeleine's disappearance.
Far from the Portuguese press at the time terming them 'persons of interest' which is apparently the closest description we have for arguida/o ... they were quite categorically labelled as suspects.
Many of the opinions held today have been formed by the reporting at the time. The lurid headlines could not have failed to influence public opinion at the time to the detriment to the search for Madeleine.
Particularly as their power is demonstrated by those who still subscribe to the perceived wisdom of the time ... despite all being subsequently overturned.
It is long established netiquette that it is ok to just quote parts of a post as long as that part stands on its own and doesn't depend on the rest of the post for meaning.
P.S. It is frequently done by other members of the forum from both sides.
But one person's opinion that a part of a post 'stands on its own' may not be the opinion of the original poster. I wasn't happy when you extracted just one para of one of my posts recently and deleted the rest.
Why do it - when it's so easy to quote the whole post - thus ensuring there is no chance of upsetting anyone - even if it is unintentional.
(must go out now)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 27, 2015, 11:15:42 AM
Firstly have you any evidence the interview was pre-recorded and secondly I have already provided the information you requested re: police guidelines on naming suspects.
firstly, are you suggesting that the interview with Andy Redwood in which he makes it clear that the McCanns are neither suspects, nor persons of interest was recorded live as it happened, in which case perhaps you can name the programme and the interviewer during this live TV transmission, and secondly guidelines are not necessarily enshrined in law, unless you can perhaps quote the law to which you are referring?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 11:17:54 AM
It is long established netiquette that it is ok to just quote parts of a post as long as that part stands on its own and doesn't depend on the rest of the post for meaning.
P.S. It is frequently done by other members of the forum from both sides.
Without wishing to resurrect the unpleasantness of yesterday I am in agreement with Benice that an acceptable protocol should be established. I found what was being done with my posts offensive. There should have been no argument about that when I pointed it out, however thin skinned posters thought I was being. Highlighting would have prevented all of that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 27, 2015, 11:19:51 AM
We have discussed this many, many times on the forum and you are perpetuating a myth while demonstrating that it was necessary for the UK police to take the extraordinary initiative of instructing the investigation on basic investigative procedures.
However it will be remembered by you that the Portuguese authorities declared unequivocally that there was no evidence to justify the Drs McCann being constituted arguidos and no evidence they had any hand in Madeleine's disappearance.
Far from the Portuguese press at the time terming them 'persons of interest' which is apparently the closest description we have for arguida/o ... they were quite categorically labelled as suspects.
Many of the opinions held today have been formed by the reporting at the time. The lurid headlines could not have failed to influence public opinion at the time to the detriment to the search for Madeleine.
Particularly as their power is demonstrated by those who still subscribe to the perceived wisdom of the time ... despite all being subsequently overturned.
Without wishing to resurrect the unpleasantness of yesterday I am in agreement with Benice that an acceptable protocol should be established. I found what was being done with my posts offensive. There should have been no argument about that when I pointed it out, however thin skinned posters thought I was being. Highlighting would have prevented all of that.
Perhaps we should all adopt the striking through of others' posts when answering, if someone would be so kind as to tell me how to do it, I will gladly adopt this method from now on.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2015, 11:24:04 AM
firstly, are you suggesting that the interview with Andy Redwood in which he makes it clear that the McCanns are neither suspects, nor persons of interest was recorded live as it happened, in which case perhaps you can name the programme and the interviewer during this live TV transmission, and secondly guidelines are not necessarily enshrined in law, unless you can perhaps quote the law to which you are referring?
I believe the interview was broadcast live on all the news channels including Sky and the BBC. Of course if you can provide evidence otherwise I'd be quite willing to change my view. As to those guidelines, are you really trying to suggest that SY in one of the highest profile investigations in the last 40 years involving a couple who have already made threats to sue another police force if they found they had not played by the book, would stray from accepted guidelines and if so why ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 27, 2015, 11:26:45 AM
Without wishing to resurrect the unpleasantness of yesterday I am in agreement with Benice that an acceptable protocol should be established. I found what was being done with my posts offensive. There should have been no argument about that when I pointed it out, however thin skinned posters thought I was being. Highlighting would have prevented all of that.
You are too easily offended then. Don't dish it out if you don't like getting it back. The solution lies with you QED.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 12:21:23 PM
Those of us with a smattering of knowledge about the press conduct regarding Madeleine's case - and I include you in that - are aware that lazy journalism and sensationalism printed to sell copy led to picking up the lies from the Portuguese press and headlining them.
As a result damages were awarded and an unprecedented apology printed. It is a fallacy to suppose the British newspapers unequivocally printed propaganda on their behalf. The press were left with huge red faces when the files and the FSS report was made public. It is my opinion that a lot of publications got off very lightly because they could have taken action against far more than the Express Group.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 27, 2015, 12:30:13 PM
Those of us with a smattering of knowledge about the press conduct regarding Madeleine's case - and I include you in that - are aware that lazy journalism and sensationalism printed to sell copy led to picking up the lies from the Portuguese press and headlining them.
As a result damages were awarded and an unprecedented apology printed. It is a fallacy to suppose the British newspapers unequivocally printed propaganda on their behalf. The press were left with huge red faces when the files and the FSS report was made public. It is my opinion that a lot of publications got off very lightly because they could have taken action against far more than the Express Group.
As I said earlier, your propaganda won't wash with me.
As regards the press, cor tbe manority of tbe last eight years, they have fallen into line as regards the abduction scenario, despite tbe lack of evidence.
Also the xenophobia exhibited by the tabloid press towards the Portuguese and members of their police is a disgrace.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 27, 2015, 01:11:39 PM
Those of us with a smattering of knowledge about the press conduct regarding Madeleine's case - and I include you in that - are aware that lazy journalism and sensationalism printed to sell copy led to picking up the lies from the Portuguese press and headlining them.
As a result damages were awarded and an unprecedented apology printed. It is a fallacy to suppose the British newspapers unequivocally printed propaganda on their behalf. The press were left with huge red faces when the files and the FSS report was made public. It is my opinion that a lot of publications got off very lightly because they could have taken action against far more than the Express Group.
The Press went too far in their grovelling apology, there might be no evidence that the McCanns hid their deceased child and concocted an abduction story but there is also no evidence that they didn't. In my book that is called a stalemate and not a vindication.
I would add that their actions and those of their friends were not commensurate with one of absolute innocence.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 27, 2015, 01:14:52 PM
Those of us with a smattering of knowledge about the press conduct regarding Madeleine's case - and I include you in that - are aware that lazy journalism and sensationalism printed to sell copy led to picking up the lies from the Portuguese press and headlining them.
As a result damages were awarded and an unprecedented apology printed. It is a fallacy to suppose the British newspapers unequivocally printed propaganda on their behalf. The press were left with huge red faces when the files and the FSS report was made public. It is my opinion that a lot of publications got off very lightly because they could have taken action against far more than the Express Group.
Is right.
To repeat a libel is to be guilty of libel, but it the prerogative of those libelled to choose whom to sue (or whom not to sue).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 27, 2015, 01:23:42 PM
The Press went too far in their grovelling apology, there might be no evidence that the McCanns hid their deceased child and concocted an abduction story but there is also no evidence that they didn't. In my book that is called a stalemate and not a vindication.
I would add that their actions and those of their friends were not commensurate with one of absolute innocence.
Sometimes, genuine benefit of doubt decisions are recorded.
Sion Jenkins was initially convicted of the murder of his step-daughter Billie-Joe on the strength of expert testimony that specks of Billie-Joe's blood found on his clothes could only have got there if he had been with her whilst she was alive.
But then the defence found a an expert witness to say that the blood might have been transferred after her death.
Jenkins was given benefit of the doubt and released from prison (I think) without compensation for a wrongful conviction.
Nothing like that applies in the McCann case.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 01:34:34 PM
As I said earlier, your propaganda won't wash with me.
As regards the press, cor tbe manority of tbe last eight years, they have fallen into line as regards the abduction scenario, despite tbe lack of evidence.
Also the xenophobia exhibited by the tabloid press towards the Portuguese and members of their police is a disgrace.
I have backed up my statements with cites. I notice the assertions made by you are sadly lacking in corroboration so perhaps you should add "In My Opinion" to your post.
Many discussions have taken place about the role of the press both as far as the search for a live child was concerned and the role it played in the demonisation of her parents.
**Snip But a source close to the Portuguese investigation said that the prevailing mood among detectives was that: "The parents have a lot of explaining to do."
The source claimed that two DNA samples found in the McCanns' hire car - one apparently a full match to Madeleine and one partial - were of a type that suggested they had come directly from her body, rather than from clothes she had worn.
The development came as: Social workers and police met to discuss the welfare of the McCanns' two-year-old twins, who could be placed on an "at-risk" register.
Police in Praia da Luz were preparing to search the villa where the McCanns had been staying until Sunday.
Kate McCann faced fresh slurs in the Portuguese media, with claims that she was aggressive towards her children and sometimes "out of control".
The McCanns were given police advice on how to deal with hate mail after a backlash against them gathered pace in Britain.
**Snip The couple have been subjected to constant smears in the Portuguese press, but there is also evidence that public sympathy in the UK may be on the wane.
Police confirmed an officer had discussed "security issues" with the McCanns amid fears that they would receive hate mail, and a BBC Radio 5 Live phone-in debate on the subject of "do you support the McCanns" was abandoned after a large number of messages condemning them were followed by demands from listeners that an ongoing police investigation should not be the subject of a radio phone-in. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html
There can be no doubt that the totally erroneous information published in the Portuguese press resulted in public opinion in Britain being affected by it.
By the same token there is a cogent argument to be made that the same erroneous information which was the genesis of the anti lobby ... had an affect on the search for Madeleine and in my opinion allowed the apprehension of those involved in her abduction to be put on the back burner.
Cui bono?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 27, 2015, 01:35:19 PM
Sometimes, genuine benefit of doubt decisions are recorded.
Sion Jenkins was initially convicted of the murder of his step-daughter Billie-Joe on the strength of expert testimony that specks of Billie-Joe's blood found on his clothes could only have got there if he had been with her whilst she was alive.
But then the defence found a an expert witness to say that the blood might have been transferred after her death.
Jenkins was given benefit of the doubt and released from prison (I think) without compensation for a wrongful conviction.
Nothing like that applies in the McCann case.
CRIME UNKNOWN ferryman.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 01:37:14 PM
The Press went too far in their grovelling apology, there might be no evidence that the McCanns hid their deceased child and concocted an abduction story but there is also no evidence that they didn't. In my book that is called a stalemate and not a vindication.
I would add that their actions and those of their friends were not commensurate with one of absolute innocence.
You are making the mistake Mr Amaral made when he denied them their right to be considered innocent.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 27, 2015, 01:38:17 PM
Sometimes, genuine benefit of doubt decisions are recorded.
Sion Jenkins was initially convicted of the murder of his step-daughter Billie-Joe on the strength of expert testimony that specks of Billie-Joe's blood found on his clothes could only have got there if he had been with her whilst she was alive.
But then the defence found a an expert witness to say that the blood might have been transferred after her death.
Jenkins was given benefit of the doubt and released from prison (I think) without compensation for a wrongful conviction.
Nothing like that applies in the McCann case.
He's still guilty of being a bully who beat his ex wife Lois and their children. Nice guy!
You are making the mistake Mr Amaral made when he denied them their right to be considered innocent.
Under the law yes but in the court of public opinion many hold alternative views.
Someone made a comment the other day asserting that a jury find a defendant innocent. That is in fact not the case. A jury can only find someone guilty or not guilty, weird exceptions being Scotland of course with its additional not proven nonsense. A not guilty verdict is not a sign of absolute innocence in my book, merely an indication that insufficient evidence was produced to support a guilty verdict under the law.
Another good example would be the failed prosecutions of Barry George for the murder of Jill Dando. Following his retrial he was found not guilty but denied compensation because he had failed to prove his absolute innocence.
You might say the law is a bit of an ass and I would agree!
www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7536815.stm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 27, 2015, 01:49:31 PM
But one person's opinion that a part of a post 'stands on its own' may not be the opinion of the original poster. I wasn't happy when you extracted just one para of one of my posts recently and deleted the rest.
Why do it - when it's so easy to quote the whole post - thus ensuring there is no chance of upsetting anyone - even if it is unintentional.
There is no requirement for any poster to quote everything another poster posts, especially if there are bits that are of no interest as far as the response is concerned.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 27, 2015, 01:51:27 PM
Under the law yes but in the court of public opinion many hold alternative views.
Someone made a comment the other day asserting that a jury find a defendant innocent. That is in fact not the case. A jury can only find someone guilty or not guilty, weird exceptions being Scotland of course with its additional not proven nonsense. A not guilty verdict is not a sign of absolute innocence in my book, merely an indication that insufficient evidence was produced to support a guilty verdict under the law.
Trouble is that much of what holds sway in (many quarters, not all,) of public opinion is based on outdated and disproved press reports and -- strictly selective -- reading of (certain portions of) the files (such as the Ameida interim report, superseded by the PJ final report for an excellent reason).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 27, 2015, 02:03:58 PM
Trouble is that much of what holds sway in (many quarters, not all,) of public opinion is based on outdated and disproved press reports and -- strictly selective -- reading of (certain portions of) the files (such as the Ameida interim report, superseded by the PJ final report for an excellent reason).
You could say that about both camps. Problem is that most people and very possibly the parents themselves don't yet know the entire truth of what occurred.
What is known for a fact is that the Portuguese Attorney General stated in his archiving report that the parents missed an opportunity to prove their innocence because of the refusal by their friends to take part in a reconstitution of events.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 02:10:11 PM
There is no requirement for any poster to quote everything another poster posts, especially if there are bits that are of no interest as far as the response is concerned.
It avoids any mistakes being made and it leaves no room for inadvertent or deliberate misunderstanding. In my opinion it is also a matter of courtesy.
Words or phrases taken out of context can cause mayhem ... I think we would agree on that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 27, 2015, 02:14:45 PM
Under the law yes but in the court of public opinion many hold alternative views.
Someone made a comment the other day asserting that a jury find a defendant innocent. That is in fact not the case. A jury can only find someone guilty or not guilty, weird exceptions being Scotland of course with its additional not proven nonsense. A not guilty verdict is not a sign of absolute innocence in my book, merely an indication that insufficient evidence was produced to support a guilty verdict under the law.
Another good example would be the failed prosecutions of Barry George for the murder of Jill Dando. Following his retrial he was found not guilty but denied compensation because he had failed to prove his absolute innocence.
You might say the law is a bit of an ass and I would agree!
www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7536815.stm
In my opinion there is nothing "bit of" about it ... complete and utter is my take on a lot of it ... but without it there is only mayhem.
Which is why "the court of public opinion" doesn't rate highly in my regard ... far too easily manipulated.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2015, 02:20:20 PM
Trouble is that much of what holds sway in (many quarters, not all,) of public opinion is based on outdated and disproved press reports and -- strictly selective -- reading of (certain portions of) the files (such as the Ameida interim report, superseded by the PJ final report for an excellent reason).
That's what I was trying to say, Ferryman. You've put it very succinctly indeed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 27, 2015, 02:31:04 PM
You could say that about both camps. Problem is that most people and very possibly the parents themselves don't yet know the entire truth of what occurred.
What is known for a fact is that the Portuguese Attorney General stated in his archiving report that the parents missed an opportunity to prove their innocence because of the refusal by their friends to take part in a reconstitution of events.
Disputed translation rather than proven fact, I would say.
I can't really suppose that the Portuguese prosecutors would go with the fascist doctrine of having to prove innocence, and certainly that doesn't ring true with the tenor of the rest of their report.
Demonstrate, maybe ....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 27, 2015, 03:41:02 PM
I believe the interview was broadcast live on all the news channels including Sky and the BBC. Of course if you can provide evidence otherwise I'd be quite willing to change my view. As to those guidelines, are you really trying to suggest that SY in one of the highest profile investigations in the last 40 years involving a couple who have already made threats to sue another police force if they found they had not played by the book, would stray from accepted guidelines and if so why ?
It was you making the claim that the Met would have been breaking the law to name a suspect prior to arrest and charging, so all I'm asking you for is which particular law they would be breaking. Can you provide it? Can you also provide a link to the simultaneous live broadcasts on Sky and the BBC of Andy Redwood's interview - did such an event really merit across the board media live coverage?!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 27, 2015, 03:42:22 PM
There is no requirement for any poster to quote everything another poster posts, especially if there are bits that are of no interest as far as the response is concerned.
I was sanctioned for doing so when I first joined the forum, after someone reported me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 27, 2015, 04:05:01 PM
Here is the link to the interview in which Andy Redwood uttered the famous words about the McCanns not being persons of interest. It looks very much to me like a video released by the Met for use by news networks, and not a live press conference. There is clearly only one person asking the questions (who we can't see or hear), no flash photography or questions being shouted out from different journos as you usually get in a live TV press conference. If anyone can provide evidence that I am wrong, be my guest, but until then I stand by my assertion that Redwood was in full control of the info being divulged, was not put on the spot or asked any awkward questions that neccessitated an on-the-spot denial that the parents were in the frame. In fact quite the opposite if you listen to his responses in their entirety. It is clear from every answer he gives that the parents are not suspects.
http://youtu.be/OPexCA0jiHI
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 27, 2015, 04:07:57 PM
I'm not worried about it, just pointing it out. I shall now remove the unneccessary verbiage from others' posts when quoting them, thanks for the authority to do so as this was hitherto frowned upon but now I have your blessing I shall start doing it again.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on November 27, 2015, 04:15:25 PM
I'm not worried about it, just pointing it out. I shall now remove the unneccessary verbiage from others' posts when quoting them, thanks for the authority to do so as this was hitherto frowned upon but now I have your blessing I shall start doing it again.
No problem, just don't change the meaning of the post.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 27, 2015, 04:16:44 PM
Here is the link to the interview in which Andy Redwood uttered the famous words about the McCanns not being persons of interest. It looks very much to me like a video released by the Met for use by news networks, and not a live press conference. There is clearly only one person asking the questions (who we can't see or hear), no flash photography or questions being shouted out from different journos as you usually get in a live TV press conference. If anyone can provide evidence that I am wrong, be my guest, but until then I stand by my assertion that Redwood was in full control of the info being divulged, was not put on the spot or asked any awkward questions that neccessitated an on-the-spot denial that the parents were in the frame. In fact quite the opposite if you listen to his responses in their entirety. It is clear from every answer he gives that the parents are not suspects.
http://youtu.be/OPexCA0jiHI
It is great shame we do not know what the questions were. They appear to have been edited out.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on November 27, 2015, 04:24:34 PM
It is great shame we do not know what the questions were. They appear to have been edited out.
Perhaps you can find a version where the questions haven't been edited out. If it was live on every channel as Faithlilly has stated then there must be various versions available!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 27, 2015, 05:57:59 PM
There is no requirement for any poster to quote everything another poster posts, especially if there are bits that are of no interest as far as the response is concerned.
I was under the impression that the big 'No No' in Netiquette was to make changes to another person's post. If deleting 90% of it and presenting the remaining 10% as if it were their whole post isn't making changes to someone else's post - then I don't know what is.
However I shall of course abide by the new rules, although I still think - 'If it's not broken - why fix it?''.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 27, 2015, 06:46:36 PM
Perhaps you can find a version where the questions haven't been edited out. If it was live on every channel as Faithlilly has stated then there must be various versions available!
You posted the link making assertions what the answers meant without knowing what the questions were. What Faithlilly says or does is not relevant to that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 27, 2015, 06:58:56 PM
You posted the link making assertions what the answers meant without knowing what the questions were. What Faithlilly says or does is not relevant to that.
The answers mean what the answers mean, unless you're going to argue that when Redwood said "neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects, or persons of interest" and that they were investigating other individuals that he meant something else entirely.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 27, 2015, 07:16:03 PM
There's absolutely no doubt that a post will come along that chops bits out and in so doing misrepresents the original post. As sure as night follows day. The forum has a report to mod button.
Personally, I trim long posts to the part I am replying to, but I happen to use ... to indicate I have trimmed bits. And of course, if the person whose post I have trimmed feels this misrepresents the context, they can re-quote their post, and box my ears soundly. Or they could use the 'report to mod' button.
Do we need a convention on quoting posts? Isn't the 'report to mod' button enough?
So what actual searching was there?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 27, 2015, 07:19:35 PM
It is great shame we do not know what the questions were. They appear to have been edited out.
The whole press conference was on youtube, the link now has a black screen and the words "This video does not exist"
I saw the conference live at the time and also the youtube upload. Someone, for some reason, thought it best taken down.
Some shortened (and with questions edited out) versions still remain on there. Luckily, the full transcripts were made for mccannfiles: they start about a third of the way down on this page here, entitled ch insp Andy Redwood press conference 4 July 2013:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id442.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 27, 2015, 07:56:21 PM
The answers mean what the answers mean, unless you're going to argue that when Redwood said "neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects, or persons of interest" and that they were investigating other individuals that he meant something else entirely.
Humpty Dumpty would be proud of that. He also said that the 38 persons of interest were not suspects. The press disagreed!
"Journalist: Some people... some people suggested, quite cruelly at the time, that the McCann parents might be in some way involved with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. What can you say about the involvement of Madeleine McCann's parents in anything to do with her disappearance?
Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood: Neither her parents or any of the member of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
Journalist: Because, obviously, there was some rumours at the time, but you are quite categorical in that?
Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood: They are not persons of interest or suspects, they are parents who have lost their daughter and we are doing all that we can to bring resolution for them to find out what has happened to Madeleine".
There we go ! the full SP as at 4th July 2013.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 27, 2015, 08:15:40 PM
Humpty Dumpty would be proud of that. He also said that the 38 persons of interest were not suspects. The press disagreed!
"Journalist: Some people... some people suggested, quite cruelly at the time, that the McCann parents might be in some way involved with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. What can you say about the involvement of Madeleine McCann's parents in anything to do with her disappearance?
Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood: Neither her parents or any of the member of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
Journalist: Because, obviously, there was some rumours at the time, but you are quite categorical in that?
Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood: They are not persons of interest or suspects, they are parents who have lost their daughter and we are doing all that we can to bring resolution for them to find out what has happened to Madeleine".
There we go ! the full SP as at 4th July 2013.
now that we know the journalist's questions perhaps you can tell us how they alter the meaning of the answers given.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 27, 2015, 09:33:02 PM
now that we know the journalist's questions perhaps you can tell us how they alter the meaning of the answers given.
Did I say they did? I posted: "It is great shame we do not know what the questions were. They appear to have been edited out". "You posted the link making assertions what the answers meant without knowing what the questions were". Both statements stand regardless. Maybe not in your Humpty Dumpty Demon Land though &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 27, 2015, 09:40:43 PM
How does one make up one's own mind in a vacuum? One can only consider by using information received. Unfortunately in the initial stages and until the release of the files ... much of that information being fed into the public domain was just plain wrong.
There is no way it could have failed to impinge on attitudes towards the search for Madeleine in the early days of her disappearance when a search for was undoubtedly the most productive time for everyone to be on the alert for any clue or suspicion.
Kate and Gerry McCann: What did you do last summer?
Apart from wash the curtains... wash Cuddlecat... move the sofa... put dirty nappies and rotting meat in the boot of the hire car... wash the car and leave the boot lid open... etc ... etc ... etc
Cuddlect WAS washed...a most bizarre decision, but moving on, why have you included a picture from a satire site so obviously created post August 2007 when talking about the "early days"? And why suggest no one was coming forward, being held back from doing so due to the contents of websites and the "portuguese press" which is utterly untrue for 2007 and all later years....you conveniently forgot to add what the British media were saying too....and as for people making up their mind in a vaccuum...people take what is available in the public domain and gradually get informed....your tryng to suggest people were brainwashed is insulting to people's intelligence and their right to their honest opinions...tryng to pin it all on the portuguese and especially as the mccanns have done on one man is shameful....
Myths will get debunked, if some still believe the mccanns washed their curtains, went to chaplins or bleached their apartment, tis for them to grapple with, not for you to use the misconceptions in a blanket denigragion of all who have legitimate questions or "just dont believe" the mccanns....their own behaviours over the years have raised eyebrows in so many circles, so dont kid yourself
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 27, 2015, 09:59:10 PM
Did I say they did? I posted: "It is great shame we do not know what the questions were. They appear to have been edited out". "You posted the link making assertions what the answers meant without knowing what the questions were". Both statements stand regardless. Maybe not in your Humpty Dumpty Demon Land though &%+((£
So my assertions about what the answers meant stand then. Thanks for clarifying.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 27, 2015, 10:14:35 PM
I have never called Martin Grime "a fraud" for the simple reason I do not think he is one.
He is an accredited professional dog handler whose team was called in to search for a missing child and whose work was seriously misrepresented.
MSM was full of it at the time all based on leaked information which was subsequently discovered to be untrue with the release of the actual FSS results. However the damage was done as can be seen from countless internet 'discussions' ~ comments accompanying donations on Mr Amaral's GFM page ~ the countless 'dog' threads on our forum etc etc
It is beyond reason to assume all of that did not have some adverse effect on the search for Madeleine, particularly in Portugal where it mattered most.
**Snip Traces of blood found in Gerry and Kate McCanns' hire car and holiday flat DID belong to Madeleine, it has been claimed.
It reflects detectives' belief that she is dead and her parents disposed of her body.
Tests carried out at a UK laboratory confirmed beyond doubt that the blood was that of the toddler, a Portuguese newspaper reported. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506725/Blood-McCanns-hire-car-DID-come-Madeleine.html#ixzz3sgHGLtBj
**Snip 11 September: Portuguese police play down reports that DNA evidence with a 100% match to Madeleine was found in her parents' hire car. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13386785
No different to headlines in uk papers printing crap like "Madelene found in Ireland" then??
Im glad you respect Mr Grime, so youre not in the same ballpark as Ferryman, Eleanor, Carana and others who more or less called him a fraud, a liar and a money maker, and that he made someone alter his cv etc etc good job
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on November 27, 2015, 10:39:10 PM
No different to headlines in uk papers printing crap like "Madelene found in Ireland" then??
Im glad you respect Mr Grime, so youre not in the same ballpark as Ferryman, Eleanor, Carana and others who more or less called him a fraud, a liar and a money maker, and that he made someone alter his cv etc etc good job
It is certainly true that Carana has more respect for Martin Grime than me (and I have the highest respect for Carana despite disagreeing with her about Martin Grime).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 27, 2015, 10:46:01 PM
It is certainly true that Carana has more respect for Martin Grime than me (and I have the highest respect for Carana despite disagreeing with her about Martin Grime).
I have a certain respect for Carana too though I thnk she unnecessarily muddied waters too much all the time. Ie answering questions by asking 20 more questions...where is she btw.......I even have a certain respect for you sometimes when you are honest....but your vindictive attack on Grime just because his dog alerts could have implicated the parents can never be justified..you even went as far as twisting facts...not good...presumably too you are after whatever truth there is in ths case and not just your decided one? I for one will be glad to hear the Mccanns have been exonerated but they havent...no authority has done so, maybe reflect on that
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 28, 2015, 12:26:15 AM
Wasn't much of the search that night based on a woke and wandered outside and fell asleep assumption?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2015, 12:42:57 AM
Cuddlect WAS washed...a most bizarre decision, but moving on, why have you included a picture from a satire site so obviously created post August 2007 when talking about the "early days"? And why suggest no one was coming forward, being held back from doing so due to the contents of websites and the "portuguese press" which is utterly untrue for 2007 and all later years....you conveniently forgot to add what the British media were saying too....and as for people making up their mind in a vaccuum...people take what is available in the public domain and gradually get informed....your tryng to suggest people were brainwashed is insulting to people's intelligence and their right to their honest opinions...tryng to pin it all on the portuguese and especially as the mccanns have done on one man is shameful....
Myths will get debunked, if some still believe the mccanns washed their curtains, went to chaplins or bleached their apartment, tis for them to grapple with, not for you to use the misconceptions in a blanket denigragion of all who have legitimate questions or "just dont believe" the mccanns....their own behaviours over the years have raised eyebrows in so many circles, so dont kid yourself
What on earth are your "legitimate questions"?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 28, 2015, 01:13:38 AM
Cuddlect WAS washed...a most bizarre decision, but moving on, why have you included a picture from a satire site so obviously created post August 2007 when talking about the "early days"? And why suggest no one was coming forward, being held back from doing so due to the contents of websites and the "portuguese press" which is utterly untrue for 2007 and all later years....you conveniently forgot to add what the British media were saying too....and as for people making up their mind in a vaccuum...people take what is available in the public domain and gradually get informed....your tryng to suggest people were brainwashed is insulting to people's intelligence and their right to their honest opinions...tryng to pin it all on the portuguese and especially as the mccanns have done on one man is shameful....
Myths will get debunked, if some still believe the mccanns washed their curtains, went to chaplins or bleached their apartment, tis for them to grapple with, not for you to use the misconceptions in a blanket denigragion of all who have legitimate questions or "just dont believe" the mccanns....their own behaviours over the years have raised eyebrows in so many circles, so dont kid yourself
I don't think it was a bizarre decision to wash CC. I don't know why some people are up in arms about it. Kate said it didn't smell of Madeleine it smelt of suntan cream, Kate should know the smell of her own child.
There were many other things which had Madeleine's smell on them at home, so it is ridiculous to say that Kate shouldn't have washed it.
Amelie was hugging it and no doubt putting it in her mouth as all small children do, so washing it was the best hygienic thing to do.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on November 28, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
I don't think it was a bizarre decision to wash CC. I don't know why some people are up in arms about it. Kate said it didn't smell of Madeleine it smelt of suntan cream, Kate should know the smell of her own child.
There were many other things which had Madeleine's smell on them at home, so it is ridiculous to say that Kate shouldn't have washed it.
Amelie was hugging it and no doubt putting it in her mouth as all small children do, so washing it was the best hygienic thing to do.
To be fair Lace if Kate had cut cuddlecat up and use it for dusters you would not have found that odd. I can hear you now ' Madeleine had many toys and dusting would have been therapeutic for Kate'
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2015, 11:27:50 AM
I don't think it was a bizarre decision to wash CC. I don't know why some people are up in arms about it. Kate said it didn't smell of Madeleine it smelt of suntan cream, Kate should know the smell of her own child.
There were many other things which had Madeleine's smell on them at home, so it is ridiculous to say that Kate shouldn't have washed it.
Amelie was hugging it and no doubt putting it in her mouth as all small children do, so washing it was the best hygienic thing to do.
The bizarre decision made as far as CuddleCat is concerned is that it wasn't bagged in an evidence bag on the night Madeleine vanished.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2015, 12:16:47 PM
To be fair Lace if Kate had cut cuddlecat up and use it for dusters you would not have found that odd. I can hear you now ' Madeleine had many toys and dusting would have been therapeutic for Kate'
Well said! @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on November 28, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
To be fair Lace if Kate had cut cuddlecat up and use it for dusters you would not have found that odd. I can hear you now ' Madeleine had many toys and dusting would have been therapeutic for Kate'
Hilarious - considering sceptics spend their whole time finding fault and ripping to shreds every single thing the McCanns do and every single word they say. Then when they are not doing that - they are then finding fault with the stuff they didn't do or didn't say.
The word 'Irony' hardly seems to be adequate.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2015, 12:51:28 PM
Hilarious - considering sceptics spend their whole time finding fault and ripping to shreds every single thing the McCanns do and every single word they say. Then when they are not doing that - they are then finding fault with the stuff they didn't do or didn't say.
The word 'Irony' hardly seems to be adequate.
It also fails to address the inadequacy which allowed a toy which had been in contact with a missing child and which could possibly have been touched by an abductor not to be entered into evidence on the night Madeleine vanished.
Whatever was done with it subsequently whether dog's toy or duster pales beside that omission.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 28, 2015, 06:39:16 PM
To be fair Lace if Kate had cut cuddlecat up and use it for dusters you would not have found that odd. I can hear you now ' Madeleine had many toys and dusting would have been therapeutic for Kate'
I'm rather disturbed that you can even consider Kate would subject Cudddlecat to the same torture as Alan B'stard inflicted on Piers' teddy in The New Statesman.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 28, 2015, 06:59:57 PM
I am slowly translating the analysis of phone records for Luz for 2 - 4 May. The 74,104 calls/texts in and out.
The calls/texts of David Payne are at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_10.jpg
This shows that on 4 May 2007 at 01:17, about 3 hours after Kate raised the alarm, David Payne made a phone call to Dianne Webster's mobile lasting 92 seconds.
I have so far come up with 2 explanations. 1) David was talking to someone in 5H, saying the McCanns were being asked to leave 5A and could they relocate to the Payne's apartment. 2) David was out and about (searching) and needed to talk to Dianne or Fiona. (Fiona did not have a separate mobile on that visit.)
Any improvements on this?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2015, 08:27:10 PM
I am slowly translating the analysis of phone records for Luz for 2 - 4 May. The 74,104 calls/texts in and out.
The calls/texts of David Payne are at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_10.jpg
This shows that on 4 May 2007 at 01:17, about 3 hours after Kate raised the alarm, David Payne made a phone call to Dianne Webster's mobile lasting 92 seconds.
I have so far come up with 2 explanations. 1) David was talking to someone in 5H, saying the McCanns were being asked to leave 5A and could they relocate to the Payne's apartment. 2) David was out and about (searching) and needed to talk to Dianne or Fiona. (Fiona did not have a separate mobile on that visit.)
Any improvements on this?
Fiona seems to have stayed with Kate until the twins were taken up to 5H. I would go with 1) because Russell thought he, David and Gerry did the timeline between 1am and 2am in 5A with the PJ present.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2015, 08:34:39 PM
I am slowly translating the analysis of phone records for Luz for 2 - 4 May. The 74,104 calls/texts in and out.
The calls/texts of David Payne are at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_10.jpg
This shows that on 4 May 2007 at 01:17, about 3 hours after Kate raised the alarm, David Payne made a phone call to Dianne Webster's mobile lasting 92 seconds.
I have so far come up with 2 explanations. 1) David was talking to someone in 5H, saying the McCanns were being asked to leave 5A and could they relocate to the Payne's apartment. 2) David was out and about (searching) and needed to talk to Dianne or Fiona. (Fiona did not have a separate mobile on that visit.)
Any improvements on this?
Checking whether or not Madeleine had been found? If yes ... return to base. If no ... keep on looking.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on November 29, 2015, 12:34:25 AM
I am slowly translating the analysis of phone records for Luz for 2 - 4 May. The 74,104 calls/texts in and out.
The calls/texts of David Payne are at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_10.jpg
This shows that on 4 May 2007 at 01:17, about 3 hours after Kate raised the alarm, David Payne made a phone call to Dianne Webster's mobile lasting 92 seconds.
I have so far come up with 2 explanations. 1) David was talking to someone in 5H, saying the McCanns were being asked to leave 5A and could they relocate to the Payne's apartment. 2) David was out and about (searching) and needed to talk to Dianne or Fiona. (Fiona did not have a separate mobile on that visit.)
Any improvements on this?
It could be anything at all, I dont understand the issue? With him phoning home....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 29, 2015, 05:46:28 PM
It also fails to address the inadequacy which allowed a toy which had been in contact with a missing child and which could possibly have been touched by an abductor not to be entered into evidence on the night Madeleine vanished.
Whatever was done with it subsequently whether dog's toy or duster pales beside that omission.
The toy was next to her head when she was asleep according to her parents and it was in that position in photos so it doesn't look like anyone had touched it. So if no shadow touched it then it indicates Eddie alerted to that odour from another source.
The toy was next to her head when she was asleep according to her parents and it was in that position in photos so it doesn't look like anyone had touched it. So if no shadow touched it then it indicates Eddie alerted to that odour from another source.
Martin Grime touched Cuddlecat before Eddie alerted (to whatever it was) Someone put it in the waste bin. Somebody put it in the cupboard. Eddie didn't alert to the gloves/hands of that person/those people. The odour apparently wasn't on almost all of the clothes Kate was pictured wearing whilst hugging Cuddlecat prior to 4th August, according to Eddie. Draw your own conclusions.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 29, 2015, 09:06:39 PM
Martin Grime touched Cuddlecat before Eddie alerted (to whatever it was) Someone put it in the waste bin. Somebody put it in the cupboard. Eddie didn't alert to the gloves/hands of that person/those people. The odour apparently wasn't on almost all of the clothes Kate was pictured wearing whilst hugging Cuddlecat prior to 4th August, according to Eddie. Draw your own conclusions.
well as Grime has said that contamination is immediate eddie should have alerted to all the clothes...he didn't...but as Grime says...the alerts have no evidential value and I think we can see why
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 29, 2015, 09:37:58 PM
Martin Grime touched Cuddlecat before Eddie alerted (to whatever it was) Someone put it in the waste bin. Somebody put it in the cupboard. Eddie didn't alert to the gloves/hands of that person/those people. The odour apparently wasn't on almost all of the clothes Kate was pictured wearing whilst hugging Cuddlecat prior to 4th August, according to Eddie. Draw your own conclusions.
So you are now an expert in forensics ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 29, 2015, 09:42:17 PM
The toy was next to her head when she was asleep according to her parents and it was in that position in photos so it doesn't look like anyone had touched it. So if no shadow touched it then it indicates Eddie alerted to that odour from another source.
For me, the fact that Eddie did not alert in the kids' bedroom, and if his alert was correct to the toy, means the toy was in another room to be contaminated with cadaver scent...probably the parent's room where the other alert was
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 29, 2015, 10:34:54 PM
I am slowly translating the analysis of phone records for Luz for 2 - 4 May. The 74,104 calls/texts in and out.
The calls/texts of David Payne are at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_10.jpg
This shows that on 4 May 2007 at 01:17, about 3 hours after Kate raised the alarm, David Payne made a phone call to Dianne Webster's mobile lasting 92 seconds.
I have so far come up with 2 explanations. 1) David was talking to someone in 5H, saying the McCanns were being asked to leave 5A and could they relocate to the Payne's apartment. 2) David was out and about (searching) and needed to talk to Dianne or Fiona. (Fiona did not have a separate mobile on that visit.)
Any improvements on this?
IMO explanation (2) is best. Anyone got a similar explanation for the voice calls at 2314 and 2317 ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 29, 2015, 10:38:15 PM
Is there any complete evidence that the child was not in the apartment when the first GNR pair arrived there?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2015, 10:41:40 PM
Answering your Why? question. If you know someone was at premises X at 9.10 and there is no complete evidence of having left before 11.10 then the default is still there at 11.10 and anything else is just assumption.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on November 29, 2015, 11:14:38 PM
Why? If you know someone was at premises X at 9.10 and there is no complete evidence of having left before 11.10 then the default is still there at 11.10 and anything else is just assumption.
She wasn't seen. She wasn't heard. She wasn't discovered in any of the places people looked. She doesn't appear in any of the crime scene photos. If she was still in the apartment after 11.10 it was the responsibility of the police to find her.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on November 29, 2015, 11:22:04 PM
She wasn't seen. She wasn't heard. She wasn't discovered in any of the places people looked. She doesn't appear in any of the crime scene photos. If she was still in the apartment after 11.10 it was the responsibility of the police to find her.
5 good points and not only in this case Misty.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 30, 2015, 01:21:05 AM
For me, the fact that Eddie did not alert in the kids' bedroom, and if his alert was correct to the toy, means the toy was in another room to be contaminated with cadaver scent...probably the parent's room where the other alert was
Or this:
Subsequently a diary written by the suspect was alert indicated by the dog. The diary had written extracts that the offender had laid the victim on the carpet whilst dead, the diary had in fact been written by the suspect having handled the body. (MG)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on November 30, 2015, 07:55:52 PM
IMO explanation (2) is best. Anyone got a similar explanation for the voice calls at 2314 and 2317 ?
OK, I'll stick my head over the parapet. If this has been done to death of the forum already, just point me at it and put me out of my misery.
I'm fairly sure that the collective "we", the entire forum, haggled timescale to death and came up with the GNR arriving at 5A at around 23:00. Gerry in the police car, Kate in the apartment. If I have got this bit wrong, then it's an easy correction.
Voice calls from Gerry to Kate in that scenario, around 23:15 make no sense whatsoever. We would be in the land of Gerry calling Kate twice within 5A, while the GNR was in 5A. I'm going to dump that one.
My next option is Gerry out searching rather than checking on what was happening with the police. Personally, I'm going to dump that option too.
That leaves me with Gerry going down to OC reception to see what was happening with the police. After that, it is a bit of a guess, but roughly it goes like this. Gerry to Kate - the police have been called. Followed by Gerry to Kate - the police are here - possibly with - we're on our way to 5A now.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2015, 08:28:54 PM
OK, I'll stick my head over the parapet. If this has been done to death of the forum already, just point me at it and put me out of my misery.
I'm fairly sure that the collective "we", the entire forum, haggled timescale to death and came up with the GNR arriving at 5A at around 23:00. Gerry in the police car, Kate in the apartment. If I have got this bit wrong, then it's an easy correction.
Voice calls from Gerry to Kate in that scenario, around 23:15 make no sense whatsoever. We would be in the land of Gerry calling Kate twice within 5A, while the GNR was in 5A. I'm going to dump that one.
My next option is Gerry out searching rather than checking on what was happening with the police. Personally, I'm going to dump that option too.
That leaves me with Gerry going down to OC reception to see what was happening with the police. After that, it is a bit of a guess, but roughly it goes like this. Gerry to Kate - the police have been called. Followed by Gerry to Kate - the police are here - possibly with - we're on our way to 5A now.
The GNR said they arrived at 2300. Then they listened to the story. Then they drove to the apartment. iIsuppose all that could have taken 20 minutes? According to Silvia Batista she walked from G5A to reception when she heard the GNR had arrived. Gerry and friend followed her.
On the 3rd May he arrived at the resort in P da L at about 23.00, accompanied by officer Roque.
They went to the OC reception.
At that moment Madeleine’s father arrived at the reception and informed them of the events.
After having found out what happened, he went to the exact place Madeleine had disappeared from, accompanied by Roque, the girl’s father and a woman who was acting as interpreter, whose name he does not remember and another individual, a friend of the girl’s father, whose name he does not recall. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA-1.htm
After she arrived she went immediately to the apartment A5 where she found several people inside the apartment and outside of it. She entered in the flat but soon left without having spoken with anyone, because she was informed that elements of the GNR were in the principal reception. She went there to meet them. When she came close to the elements of the GNR she found that behind her was Gerry, Madeleine's father, accompanied by another man whose identity she doesn't remember. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 01, 2015, 01:35:40 AM
At 22:52 the GNR car was passing through Valverde on the outskirts of PDL. (Sources: Portugal Telecom data, Roque statement, Costa statement). That 22.52 time is definite. Therefore the GNR car arrived at 24hr reception on Rua Direita at about 22.56 IMO. Allow a few minutes there to briefly talk to the father. Then the GNR drive with GM and MO in car to 5A. So the GNR arrive at 5A at or before about 23:05 IMO. The 2 voice calls are at 23:14 and 23:17
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on December 01, 2015, 02:12:52 AM
At 22:52 the GNR car was passing through Valverde on the outskirts of PDL. (Sources: Portugal Telecom data, Roque statement, Costa statement). That 22.52 time is definite. Therefore the GNR car arrived at 24hr reception on Rua Direita at about 22.56 IMO. Allow a few minutes there to briefly talk to the father. Then the GNR drive with GM and MO in car to 5A. So the GNR arrive at 5A at or before about 23:05 IMO. The 2 voice calls are at 23:14 and 23:17
Fair enough. I had my stab at it.
So what's your take?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on December 01, 2015, 03:13:52 AM
More on the deleted call records.
"...what was her reason for deleting three of the four calls, between 23.14 and 23.17, from her husband on that critical night?."
I haven't reached the relevant call data page in my translation of the phone records, so the following is provisional.
There are two entries from Gerry to Kate timed at 23:14:49 with a duration of 6 seconds and 23:14:51 with a duration of 8 seconds. These overlap, so there cannot be two calls. Either the records are in error, or this is a case of a single call going through 2 operators, each recording slightly different data.
There are two entries from Gerry to Kate timed at 23:17:04 duration 29 seconds and 23:17:06 duration 31 seconds. As in the first pair, the start time of the call is off by 2 seconds and the duration is off by 2 seconds.
In the build up to the analysis, the inspector explains that if a call goes through two operators in Luz (say Vodaphone and Optimus) it can show up twice, due to each operator reporting a slightly different time.
So, I make this 2 calls, not 4. I take it that arguments about what Kate did or not did not delete are in some previous thread, so I won't go there.
The issue remains the timing. On the model that has been built here, both Gerry and Kate at 23:15 to 23:17 should be in apartment 5A, discussing the disappearance with 2 GNR officers and with Silvia Batista translating.
The 2 calls suggest that this model is not accurate.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2015, 05:13:27 PM
I haven't reached the relevant call data page in my translation of the phone records, so the following is provisional.
There are two entries from Gerry to Kate timed at 23:14:49 with a duration of 6 seconds and 23:14:51 with a duration of 8 seconds. These overlap, so there cannot be two calls. Either the records are in error, or this is a case of a single call going through 2 operators, each recording slightly different data.
There are two entries from Gerry to Kate timed at 23:17:04 duration 29 seconds and 23:17:06 duration 31 seconds. As in the first pair, the start time of the call is off by 2 seconds and the duration is off by 2 seconds.
In the build up to the analysis, the inspector explains that if a call goes through two operators in Luz (say Vodaphone and Optimus) it can show up twice, due to each operator reporting a slightly different time.
So, I make this 2 calls, not 4. I take it that arguments about what Kate did or not did not delete are in some previous thread, so I won't go there.
The issue remains the timing. On the model that has been built here, both Gerry and Kate at 23:15 to 23:17 should be in apartment 5A, discussing the disappearance with 2 GNR officers and with Silvia Batista translating.
The 2 calls suggest that this model is not accurate.
Here's what Matthew Oldfield said;
But, erm, we were there about sort of eleven, ten past eleven when the GNR sort of Police arrived and there was two of them in a Police car. Somebody's asked whether the siren was on and I think the lights were flashing but I don't remember, and I may have heard the siren in the distance, but I can't recall. So they arrived just about five minutes after Gerry and I had been there. And one of the cleaning ladies I think came to translate, I think this is Sylvia or Sylvie, I'm not sure, but she was there helping, you know, saying, this is, you know, this is the father. And they put him in the car and drove back up to the apartment. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
If it was 2310 when the GNR arrived, it may work then?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 02, 2015, 01:53:15 AM
The second phonecall call to GNR station ends at 22.53.40. Then the GNR station radios the car. So the car is passing through Valverde at 22.54 How many minutes to drive fast Valverde to 24hr reception ? And how many minutes to drive 24hr reception to 5A ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 02, 2015, 02:38:31 AM
The second phonecall call to GNR station ends at 22.53.40. Then the GNR station radios the car. So the car is passing through Valverde at 22.54 How many minutes to drive fast Valverde to 24hr reception ? And how many minutes to drive 24hr reception to 5A ?
It's approx. 2km from Valverde to Rua Direta but I'm a bit unsure about the route around the one way system as shown on GE. 5 minutes minimum I would say to the 24 hr reception.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on December 02, 2015, 12:41:04 PM
It's approx. 2km from Valverde to Rua Direta but I'm a bit unsure about the route around the one way system as shown on GE. 5 minutes minimum I would say to the 24 hr reception.
Does the GNR car actually know where OC 24 hr reception is? Is there any reason why it should?
If it doesn't, you need to factor in the time it took to find OC reception.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 03, 2015, 01:10:36 AM
José Maria Batista Roque - Statement, 17 October 2007
Processos Volume XII
Pages 3281 - 3284
Witness Statement
José María Batista Roque
Date: 17 – 10 - 2007
He comes to the process as a witness. He is an officer with the Lagos GNR and has worked for the Guarda for 21 years.
He confirms the integrity of his previous statements.
As regards the facts on the night of 3rd May, when he was on patrol with his colleague Costa in Odiaxere, he received a radio communication from the central telling him to go to P da L, specifically to the reception of OC resort where the father of a girl who had disappeared was. When they were on their way to this place and had reached the zone of Valverde he received another communication saying that this was a very young girl and that her father had called again. They continued on their way, now with urgency, heading for the main reception of the resort.
When they arrived, they saw the girl's father, a friend whom he cannot describe, an OC employee and a translator who was also an OC employee, named Silvia Batista...........snipped -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the length of service of both officers, I think it is safe to assume that at least one of them would have been familiar with the route to OC reception. I think it would be more interesting to start the timing proper from 22.41 in Odiaxere to determine if they really could have reached Valverde by 2254. Did they leave the scene of the burglary they were attending straight away?
.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 03, 2015, 01:21:38 AM
José Maria Batista Roque - Statement, 17 October 2007
Processos Volume XII
Pages 3281 - 3284
Witness Statement
José María Batista Roque
Date: 17 – 10 - 2007
He comes to the process as a witness. He is an officer with the Lagos GNR and has worked for the Guarda for 21 years.
He confirms the integrity of his previous statements.
As regards the facts on the night of 3rd May, when he was on patrol with his colleague Costa in Odiaxere, he received a radio communication from the central telling him to go to P da L, specifically to the reception of OC resort where the father of a girl who had disappeared was. When they were on their way to this place and had reached the zone of Valverde he received another communication saying that this was a very young girl and that her father had called again. They continued on their way, now with urgency, heading for the main reception of the resort.
When they arrived, they saw the girl's father, a friend whom he cannot describe, an OC employee and a translator who was also an OC employee, named Silvia Batista...........snipped -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the length of service of both officers, I think it is safe to assume that at least one of them would have been familiar with the route to OC reception. I think it would be more interesting to start the timing proper from 22.41 in Odiaxere to determine if they really could have reached Valverde by 2254. Did they leave the scene of the burglary they were attending straight away?
.
certainiy didnt waste time as the mccanns and co did
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 03, 2015, 01:29:14 AM
From the town of Odiaxere to Valverde (Orbitur entrance M537) is 9km drive. For a normal driver is estimated to take 9 minutes with no traffic.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 03, 2015, 01:46:51 AM
From the town of Odiaxere to Valverde (Orbitur entrance M537) is 9km drive. For a normal driver is estimated to take 9 minutes with no traffic.
OK, so it is probable that the GNR were at Valverde at 2254. What is your estimation of the time from there to OC reception, taking the narrow one-way streets into consideration?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 03, 2015, 01:56:07 AM
OK, so it is probable that the GNR were at Valverde at 2254. What is your estimation of the time from there to OC reception, taking the narrow one-way streets into consideration?
get back to basics...mccanns or friends did not ring police for about 40 mins plus...pathetic by any means if sure was an abduction.....no excuses count either...none..ts like a health scare...you do NOT hesitate...ie wait for your mate to jog around...you CALL and you make SURE how to call or that smeone else calls if youre incapacitated or some other reason, PDQ, end of....all of this nonsense is just that! Bloody total nonsense
Goodnight, i Mccanns have massive case to answer hopefulky one day they will feel the need to confess to everything that happenned without minders and pr etc one can hope bye now, off to watch the frankenstein chronicls,more believable than an abduction
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 03, 2015, 02:04:30 AM
OK, so it is probable that the GNR were at Valverde at 2254. What is your estimation of the time from there to OC reception, taking the narrow one-way streets into consideration?
In 2015 Rua Direita is oneway (east) so fastest route from Valverde (Orbitur entrance) to 24hr reception is probably to Rua Ramalhete then down Rua Martins? 2.2km, about 5 minutes normal driving. In 2007 maybe a little shorter if Rua Direita was two-way???
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 03, 2015, 02:16:47 AM
get back to basics...mccanns or friends did not ring police for about 40 mins plus...pathetic by any means if sure was an abduction.....no excuses count either...none..ts like a health scare...you do NOT hesitate...ie wait for your mate to jog around...you CALL and you make SURE how to call or that smeone else calls if youre incapacitated or some other reason, PDQ, end of....all of this nonsense is just that! Bloody total nonsense
Goodnight, Mccanns have massive case to answer hopefulky one day they will feel the need to confess to everything that happenned without mnders and pr etc one can hope bye now
Yes 40 minutes before 1st call to police. For the thread title the relevance is - there was absolutely no police search of the inside of the apartment for the first 65 minutes.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 03, 2015, 02:22:47 AM
In 2015 Rua Direita is oneway (east) so fastest route from Valverde (Orbitur entrance) to 24hr reception is probably to Rua Ramalhete then down Rua Martins? 2.2km, about 5 minutes normal driving. In 2007 maybe a little shorter if Rua Direita was two-way???
Realistically, then - the earliest the GNR would have been at OC reception was 2259 - just after SB arrived from her home in Lagos (was she phoned before the police were?) and at the same time as GM appeared there. How long for translating? 2314 & 2317 - nothing suspicious about those calls imo.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 03, 2015, 02:33:45 AM
Realistically, then - the earliest the GNR would have been at OC reception was 2259 - just after SB arrived from her home in Lagos (was she phoned before the police were?) and at the same time as GM appeared there. How long for translating? 2314 & 2317 - nothing suspicious about those calls imo.
Valverde to reception is probably less than 5 minutes for police on urgent response. IMO 3 minutes ? If police arrive reception 2257 or 2259, IMO they would arrive 5A before 2314.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on December 03, 2015, 02:33:48 PM
get back to basics...mccanns or friends did not ring police for about 40 mins plus...pathetic by any means if sure was an abduction.....no excuses count either...none..ts like a health scare...you do NOT hesitate...ie wait for your mate to jog around...you CALL and you make SURE how to call or that smeone else calls if youre incapacitated or some other reason, PDQ, end of....all of this nonsense is just that! Bloody total nonsense
Goodnight, i Mccanns have massive case to answer hopefulky one day they will feel the need to confess to everything that happenned without minders and pr etc one can hope bye now, off to watch the frankenstein chronicls,more believable than an abduction
Hang on, reception did not ring police you mean, they were asked to whether they didn't because they had their own arrangement of how to deal with a missing child I don't know, but they were asked to ring.
How many people ring on behalf of someone else because they are too traumatised?
The thing is mercury, it hasn't happened to you so you really don't know how you would react, the brain does some weird things when faced with trauma such as this.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2015, 04:32:18 PM
Hang on, reception did not ring police you mean, they were asked to whether they didn't because they had their own arrangement of how to deal with a missing child I don't know, but they were asked to ring.
How many people ring on behalf of someone else because they are too traumatised?
The thing is mercury, it hasn't happened to you so you really don't know how you would react, the brain does some weird things when faced with trauma such as this.
Matthew Oldfield said he asked the receptionist to ring the police. The receptionist makes no mention of speaking to Matthew Oldfield.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on December 03, 2015, 05:22:15 PM
The receptionist claimed he called the GNR immediately on hearing the news that a child as missing - sometime between 9.30 and 10pm.
I know, although there is no record of the call and he didn't hear it from any of the holiday group. The first call was at 2241.
he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Anna on December 03, 2015, 07:27:04 PM
I know, although there is no record of the call and he didn't hear it from any of the holiday group. The first call was at 2241.
he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
He didn't mention the theft which delayed the police either. I think the poor chap was busy and confused.
A lot of the statements were confusing.
Vitor Manuel dos Santos With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00-22.25 (time wrong?)he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR. http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic9-10.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on December 03, 2015, 07:52:41 PM
I know, although there is no record of the call and he didn't hear it from any of the holiday group. The first call was at 2241.
he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
So, not a very reliable witness then.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Anna on December 03, 2015, 08:02:40 PM
I think we are slipping off topic......And partly my fault, sorry.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 03, 2015, 08:03:39 PM
He didn't mention the theft which delayed the police either. I think the poor chap was busy and confused.
A lot of the statements were confusing.
Vitor Manuel dos Santos With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00-22.25 (time wrong?)he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR. http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic9-10.html
There were no calls from the Ocean Club to the GNR until 2241. There is no record also of a call to Santos. Unless Helder used another telephone, none of it happened.
Edited by Anna, to correct the Topic title, which had been accidentally altered
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Anna on December 03, 2015, 08:10:35 PM
There were no calls from the Ocean Club to the GNR until 2241. There is no record also of a call to Santos. Unless Helder used another telephone, none of it happened.
Are you saying that Helder didn't phone Santos and Santos lied about the phone call from helder telling him there had been a delay because of a theft?
I think it more likely that they got their times confused. I don't know about the theft delaying the police though.
Anyway we are Off Topic.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 03, 2015, 10:47:55 PM
Yes 40 minutes before 1st call to police. For the thread title the relevance is - there was absolutely no police search of the inside of the apartment for the first 65 minutes.
Interesting
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on December 03, 2015, 11:48:48 PM
Are you saying that Helder didn't phone Santos and Santos lied about the phone call from helder telling him there had been a delay because of a theft?
I think it more likely that they got their times confused. I don't know about the theft delaying the police though.
Anyway we are Off Topic.
There was no phone call to Santos from the Ocean Club reception between 2200 and 2215, which is what Santos said. In fact there were no outgoing calls between 2121 and 2241 when the first call to the GNR was made. There were 4 outgoing calls after the calls to the GNR but none of them was to Santos either. So reception didn't call him that evening on the main line, and John Hill wasn't at the site between 2200-2215, and the GNR weren't at reception at 2230. His evidence is nonsense.
he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR. Given the circumstances, the witness thought it best to go to the resort to find out more about the situation. When he arrived at the scene about 10 to 15 minutes later, he immediately went to the reception where the GNR were present, taking a statement from the girl's father. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Anna on December 04, 2015, 12:16:02 PM
We all know about the phone records G.
You started this line of conversation with. ….. Why didn’t the receptionist mention it then? (That Matt had asked him to call), or regarding the same.
We now know that it was not the only detail that the receptionist omitted from his statement, which, is of course dependant on whether Vitor gave a true account of the phone conversation with Helder (Police delayed due to a theft and several call made to the police). And the times were all wrong in both his and Vitor’s statement, so neither are IMO, worth relying on for exact details of what happened, or times.
There are no records of the phone calls, so maybe they were using, either mobile phones or another line….I don’t know.
Now that we have clarified this, can we please get back on topic?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on December 04, 2015, 01:57:49 PM
You started this line of conversation with. ….. Why didn’t the receptionist mention it then? (That Matt had asked him to call), or regarding the same.
We now know that it was not the only detail that the receptionist omitted from his statement, which, is of course dependant on whether Vitor gave a true account of the phone conversation with Helder (Police delayed due to a theft and several call made to the police). And the times were all wrong in both his and Vitor’s statement, so neither are IMO, worth relying on for exact details of what happened, or times.
There are no records of the phone calls, so maybe they were using, either mobile phones or another line….I don’t know.
Now that we have clarified this, can we please get back on topic?
I don't think is clarified and I think it is important. I believe it gives a better check on when the GNR arrived and how long they spent with Gerry at reception.
So, if this is off-topic, can someone kindly bump one of the (presumably many) phone threads, so this part can be developed?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 04, 2015, 10:25:27 PM
IMO the calls to police are directly related to the "search" ...so NOT off topic at all...it isnt a rule set in stone. But anyhow.......the rule is keep withn topic "where possible" ...this is totally within topic so I would carry on
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 06, 2015, 12:25:55 AM
Quote
... they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere ...
Yes, IMO the GNR were responding to the call from a security company at 22:29. It's in the files.
If the T9 had used one of their mobiles to phone 112 before 22.29 they would have got an english speaking operator and the GNR would have gone to PDL first, not Odiaxere. The whole police search would have started earlier and this could have made a crucial difference.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 06, 2015, 12:48:36 AM
Yes, IMO the GNR were responding to the call from a security company at 22:29. It's in the files.
If the T9 had used one of their mobiles to phone 112 before 22.29 they would have got an english speaking operator and the GNR would have gone to PDL first, not Odiaxere. The whole police search would have started earlier and this could have made a crucial difference.
Not a single tapas 9 member rang 112 number which would have been sent to their mobiiles when changing countries or 999 which would also have worked to get the through to emergency
Neither did they ask any one in tapas bar to call...most english and portuguese speaking .
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on December 06, 2015, 01:04:19 AM
Yes, IMO the GNR were responding to the call from a security company at 22:29. It's in the files.
If the T9 had used one of their mobiles to phone 112 before 22.29 they would have got an english speaking operator and the GNR would have gone to PDL first, not Odiaxere. The whole police search would have started earlier and this could have made a crucial difference.
If Reception had made that call when they were initially alerted to Madeleine's disappearance ... that could have made the crucial difference to which you refer and perhaps an earlier start to the police search.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 06, 2015, 01:14:03 AM
If Reception had made that call when they were initially alerted to Madeleine's disappearance ... that could have made the crucial difference to which you refer and perhaps an earlier start to the police search.
If the so called responsible parents hadnt left their three precious babies all alone to fend for themselves out of sight and hearing....in an insecure apartment and also told total strangers they weere actually doing this, which is INSANE at best, they might still have their first born....the mccanns must have been the stupidest of parents ever...that YOU and ithers are blaming every tom dick and harry is ludicrous,,,, they were reaponsible for their kids, no one else....get over it
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on December 06, 2015, 01:46:23 AM
If the so called responsible parents hadnt left their three precious babies all alone to fend for themselves out of sight and hearing....in an insecure apartment and also told total strangers they weere actually doing this, which is INSANE at best, they might still have their first born....the mccanns must have been the stupidest of parents ever...that YOU and ithers are blaming every tom dick and harry is ludicrous,,,, they were reaponsible for their kids, no one else....get over it
I think you may find that the Drs McCann are on record as agreeing with some aspects of your post. Which is entirely a matter for them as they are the people who are having to live with it every day of their lives.
Why there are people out there who have a mission to add to their burden ... is also entirely a matter for those people, the difference being that in their case ... they do not have to.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 06, 2015, 02:01:23 AM
I think you may find that the Drs McCann are on record as agreeing with some aspects of your post. Which is entirely a matter for them as they are the people who are having to live with it every day of their lives.
Why there are people out there who have a mission to add to their burden ... is also entirely a matter for those people, the difference being that in their case ... they do not have to.
I dont know if there are people whose MISSION is to add to their burden...you have to accept though that everything the mccanns say in public is fair game to reply to...tbh Brietta the mccanns have never done a very honest interview where people believed them, hell, the interviewers seemed not to , do you have an opinion in that? Or do you think we were all dna engneered to mistrust these two dodgy people lol
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 06, 2015, 02:15:03 AM
....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 06, 2015, 10:52:11 PM
If Reception had made that call when they were initially alerted to Madeleine's disappearance ... that could have made the crucial difference to which you refer and perhaps an earlier start to the police search.
Yes but the receptionist didn't know the full situation. The group did. If they had used one of their mobiles to call 112 from 5A at 2200 (free call, english-speaking operators) the GNR would have been at 5A by 2210 and the police search would have started a whole hour earlier and we might not be here now ...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 06, 2015, 11:12:01 PM
If Reception had made that call when they were initially alerted to Madeleine's disappearance ... that could have made the crucial difference to which you refer and perhaps an earlier start to the police search.
So it's the Reception's fault now, is it? The receptionist who never mentioned Matthew Oldfield speaking to him? Matthew who seems to have been so weak and unsure of his facts that he was dismissed quite easily according to what he says;
but then it was a kind of, it was surreal when you got there, I said, you've got to phone the Police, you know, a child's been taken, and they went, oh no, she's probably just sort of woken up and he thought she's probably sort of wandered off or something like that and you thought, yeah, maybe you're right, maybe you're right, erm, can you please, it was sort of, it was kind of, it was sort a weird kind of lack of urgency, you know, he'd ring, but you had to sort and stand there and say, ring now, ring now, so I don't know if they rang at that point, but certainly, erm, you know, I certainly asked them to, about perhaps sort of maybe about ten past ten maybe. Erm, then we went back up to, or I went, because I was on my own, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on December 06, 2015, 11:14:35 PM
Yes but the receptionist didn't know the full situation. The group did. If they had used one of their mobiles to call 112 from 5A at 2200 (free call, english-speaking operators) the GNR would have been at 5A by 2210 and the police search would have started a whole hour earlier and we might not be here now ...
But somebody may have been caught in the act if they came within 10 minutes.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 06, 2015, 11:17:34 PM
The same Oldfield who went to check on Madeleine and not all the children (according to one of the statements) and didnt bother checking but wondered where she slept according to his wife and actually went into her parents bedroom to see if she was there but not into the kids bedroom
Insane
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on December 06, 2015, 11:41:44 PM
Yes but the receptionist didn't know the full situation. The group did. If they had used one of their mobiles to call 112 from 5A at 2200 (free call, english-speaking operators) the GNR would have been at 5A by 2210 and the police search would have started a whole hour earlier and we might not be here now ...
You mean the significance of gangs of people searching and a missing child report and a request to call the police didn't impinge on his conciousness? His statement gives an earlier time for his call than the phone records. Either a different phone was used or he realised the error of his delay to call or it is something lost in translation.
Whatever ... it is a moment in time which never can be repeated or changed and those involved at the time did not have the benefit of hindsight enjoyed by us who pore over their every move confident that in their circumstance we would have done exactly the right thing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 07, 2015, 12:01:48 AM
IMO out of all the dozens of GNR and PJ who were there that night and the next day, only one of them actually searched the apartment and that an incomplete search.
Searching for the child means methodically looking in and under and behind every physical space without exception.
(Taking photos, dusting for prints on two openings, collecting hairs in selected parts of selected rooms, none of that counts as searching for the child).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on December 07, 2015, 12:44:27 AM
You mean the significance of gangs of people searching and a missing child report and a request to call the police didn't impinge on his conciousness? His statement gives an earlier time for his call than the phone records. Either a different phone was used or he realised the error of his delay to call or it is something lost in translation.
Whatever ... it is a moment in time which never can be repeated or changed and those involved at the time did not have the benefit of hindsight enjoyed by us who pore over their every move confident that in their circumstance we would have done exactly the right thing.
As the phone calls were flagged as being off topic, I thrashed it out at my place instead. See https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/madeleine-luz-2007-yellow-pages/ His story and Vitor's are out re time but otherwise fit each other perfectly and fit the phone records we have.
His 'fault' was that he made his statement on 9/5/2007, so he had 6 days to forget the precise time he made the phone call. Vitor's 'fault' was he made his statement on 7/5/2007, so he had only 4 days to forget the precise time.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 07, 2015, 01:44:38 AM
As the phone calls were flagged as being off topic, I thrashed it out at my place instead. See https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/madeleine-luz-2007-yellow-pages/ His story and Vitor's are out re time but otherwise fit each other perfectly and fit the phone records we have.
His 'fault' was that he made his statement on 9/5/2007, so he had 6 days to forget the precise time he made the phone call. Vitor's 'fault' was he made his statement on 7/5/2007, so he had only 4 days to forget the precise time.
It is impossible to make an accurate analysis of phone records which have been re-typed into Excel & are also incomplete. Doesn't the lack of phone traffic immediately after 22.51 on Greentrust records seem strange? Helder probably did call the GNR using another line. It is probably in the full record of emergency calls that night - which is why the PJ never pursued that anomaly in his statement & the timeline.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on December 07, 2015, 02:21:29 AM
As the phone calls were flagged as being off topic, I thrashed it out at my place instead. See https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/madeleine-luz-2007-yellow-pages/ His story and Vitor's are out re time but otherwise fit each other perfectly and fit the phone records we have.
His 'fault' was that he made his statement on 9/5/2007, so he had 6 days to forget the precise time he made the phone call. Vitor's 'fault' was he made his statement on 7/5/2007, so he had only 4 days to forget the precise time.
The writing down of the timeline undertaken in the immediate aftermath of the event was exactly the correct thing to do as attested by the unnamed GNR officer. I would have used a different methodology ... but at least they recognised the importance of memory fading or becoming embellished with time and recording it before too much of that could occur.
It was a more valuable use of their time than the searching they did bearing in mind there were many others doing that who were not in possession of their valuable knowledge of the sequence of events.
I follow your blog ... https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/madeleine-luz-2007-yellow-pages/ and am struck by the amount of work you have put into the phone records. My brain doesn't work that way unfortunately (or fortunately because it certainly makes my life a bit easier than the tasks you set yourself) you have a similar analytical mindset as Sadie, Misty and Pegasus I think ... given a problem you are all like a terrier with a bone.
Of interest as far as searching goes these two threads go into some detail about the derelict building which was the topic of interest not too long ago for which you provided photographs which cleared a few things up ... Heri has also provided some excellent photographs in topic 1390.
It is impossible to make an accurate analysis of phone records which have been re-typed into Excel & are also incomplete. Doesn't the lack of phone traffic immediately after 22.51 on Greentrust records seem strange? Helder probably did call the GNR using another line. It is probably in the full record of emergency calls that night - which is why the PJ never pursued that anomaly in his statement & the timeline.
Just posted about you and that analytical mind ... looks like I got it spot on. Time for me to butt out in this conversation and let you two anoraks get on with it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 07, 2015, 02:41:34 AM
Just posted about you and that analytical mind ... looks like I got it spot on. Time for me to butt out in this conversation and let you two anoraks get on with it.
Thanks, B :) I'm neither as clever or as analytical as the other 3 posters, or your good self. It just strikes me as odd that very few external calls were seemingly made from OC reception in the midst of a crisis.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on December 07, 2015, 03:14:43 AM
The writing down of the timeline undertaken in the immediate aftermath of the event was exactly the correct thing to do as attested by the unnamed GNR officer. I would have used a different methodology ... but at least they recognised the importance of memory fading or becoming embellished with time and recording it before too much of that could occur.
It was a more valuable use of their time than the searching they did bearing in mind there were many others doing that who were not in possession of their valuable knowledge of the sequence of events.
I follow your blog ... https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/madeleine-luz-2007-yellow-pages/ and am struck by the amount of work you have put into the phone records. My brain doesn't work that way unfortunately (or fortunately because it certainly makes my life a bit easier than the tasks you set yourself) you have a similar analytical mindset as Sadie, Misty and Pegasus I think ... given a problem you are all like a terrier with a bone.
Of interest as far as searching goes these two threads go into some detail about the derelict building which was the topic of interest not too long ago for which you provided photographs which cleared a few things up ... Heri has also provided some excellent photographs in topic 1390.
Thanks for the links. I have been wondering about which areas of Luz have been photographed to death and which remain to be revealed.
Heri has taken albums of photographs which he has shared. I can tell you are itching to get an excuse to get more photos with the new camera. Maybe get in touch with Heri for suggestions. I'm sure there will be something he will be able to come up with ~ without you getting arrested for trespass.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 07, 2015, 11:30:02 AM
It is impossible to make an accurate analysis of phone records which have been re-typed into Excel & are also incomplete. Doesn't the lack of phone traffic immediately after 22.51 on Greentrust records seem strange? Helder probably did call the GNR using another line. It is probably in the full record of emergency calls that night - which is why the PJ never pursued that anomaly in his statement & the timeline.
There is no record of another line. The phone records are for the OC main line as provided by the phone company, nothing to do with Excel. OC are still using the same number today. Vitor Santos said he was phoned by reception, he wasn't. He may have been phoned by the receptionist using a mobile, but I can't think why when he had a phone available to use which was free.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 11, 2015, 12:49:11 AM
There is no record of another line. The phone records are for the OC main line as provided by the phone company, nothing to do with Excel. OC are still using the same number today. Vitor Santos said he was phoned by reception, he wasn't. He may have been phoned by the receptionist using a mobile, but I can't think why when he had a phone available to use which was free.
About 8 minutes after 2nd call to GNR, reception phoned two mobiles
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 11, 2015, 01:37:46 AM
About 8 minutes after 2nd call to GNR, reception phoned two mobiles
There is precious little phone traffic on the main line after that, which seems odd, given the situation. How do you suppose Thomas Cook handled their phone business? Was it not odd that there was no reference made to any TC reps being involved in the searches?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 11, 2015, 02:10:35 AM
just after the calls to police, one of the 2 mobile numbers called by reception is likely to be VS.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 11, 2015, 02:26:30 AM
just after the calls to police, one of the 2 mobile numbers called by reception is likely to be VS.
Quite possibly. So while Helder was stressing, John Hill had called the police again, on the same extension used for the first call but not the same extension as Helder. Did Helder perhaps not understand English very well, as JH had taken control of the situation?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 11, 2015, 06:48:28 AM
Vitor Santos wasn't phoned on the OC main line at all. My research indicates that the calls were to other staff members. Luis Barros, Nelson Rodrigues and Jeronimo Salcedas were phoned after the GNR calls.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on December 11, 2015, 10:14:38 AM
Vitor Santos wasn't phoned on the OC main line at all. My research indicates that the calls were to other staff members. Luis Barros, Nelson Rodrigues and Jeronimo Salcedas were phoned after the GNR calls.
Thanks to a bit of interchange, this has been clarified quite a bit.
The Ocean Club had a landline system capable of 100 extensions. The only time the records show the full-length number is if the base number is used. All other extensions record as two digits shorter - you do not get the extension number. Therefore, you do not know from the record who is making the phone call.
G-Unit is right about the calls after the GNR was phoned. Using the GNR records re staff interviews, the calls can be matched. None of the numbers matches Vitor's number. The numbers match staff as above. These would need to be cross-referenced by who called whom, but they seem to fall into the general category of internal alerts from one member of the OC to another.
The PJ Files also show a mobile number for the OC. This may have been used to phone Vitor, and would not show up in the landline OC records. Since the mobile traffic in the PJ Files is for the Tapas 9, armchair sleuths are not able to check if Helder used this method or not. Why he would is a puzzle.
Bottom line is there are 2 landline calls to the GNR, and both Helder and Vitor say a call to Vitor was after the GNR calls. Vitor then says he took 10 to 15 minutes to get from Lagos to OC 24hr reception, and that when he arrived, the GNR were talking to Gerry in reception.
And that pushes the time the GNR arrived at 5A beyond 11pm. As to when the GNR search actually began, over to you.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Admin on December 11, 2015, 02:01:06 PM
Members are reminded to consider carefully what they post and in which threads. A lot of irrelevant postings have been removed recently along with several posts which were a clear breach of our rules. Removing this material is a thankless and time consuming task for editors and moderators so please desist.
Admin
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 11, 2015, 11:29:58 PM
Vitor Santos wasn't phoned on the OC main line at all. My research indicates that the calls were to other staff members. Luis Barros, Nelson Rodrigues and Jeronimo Salcedas were phoned after the GNR calls.
Yes you are right. 2259 was to LB (this call was from NR at the Millenium landline extension). 2305 and 2328 were to JS. 2357 was to NR.
So IMO the receptionist used a mobile to phone VS. At about 2254 IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 12, 2015, 08:11:23 AM
We can assume that Helder used a mobile, but we don't know that he did.
Yes HL could have used a either a mobile, or a different landline. But realising the call to VS was not from OC main landline system, means the call was probably at 2254 IMO (immediate after the 2252 call to GNR). If VS was phoned at 2254, how long would it take him to get from his home to 24h reception?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 12, 2015, 11:00:08 PM
JH used his mobile to phone reception at 2238, IMO from the tapas area, and told reception to phone GNR.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on December 12, 2015, 11:57:36 PM
Yes HL could have used a either a mobile, or a different landline. But realising the call to VS was not from OC main landline system, means the call was probably at 2254 IMO (immediate after the 2252 call to GNR). If VS was phoned at 2254, how long would it take him to get from his home to 24h reception?
According to his statement, it took him 10 to 15 minutes.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 13, 2015, 12:13:06 AM
According to his statement, it took him 10 to 15 minutes.
If HL phones VS at 2254 and VS arrives at reception 10 to 15 minutes later That's 2204 or 2209 and GNR are still at reception. So GNR arrival at 5A is about 2210? For the first hour and ten minutes there was no police search of 5A.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on December 13, 2015, 12:43:28 PM
If HL phones VS at 2254 and VS arrives at reception 10 to 15 minutes later That's 2204 or 2209 and GNR are still at reception. So GNR arrival at 5A is about 2210? For the first hour and ten minutes there was no police search of 5A.
Personally, I think you have to factor in the two calls from Gerry to Kate. I doubt he was making them whilst inside 5A, and IMO he was not outside 5A while Kate was dealing with the GNR inside 5A. I think both calls were made before the GNR made it to 5A, pushing time of arrival still further on.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 13, 2015, 01:47:05 PM
Personally, I think you have to factor in the two calls from Gerry to Kate. I doubt he was making them whilst inside 5A, and IMO he was not outside 5A while Kate was dealing with the GNR inside 5A. I think both calls were made before the GNR made it to 5A, pushing time of arrival still further on.
There were actually 4 calls from Gerry to Kate between 23.14 and 23.17, all deleted except for the last one. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
I thought Silvia Batista might help, as she was there, but just discovered more discrepancies. She and her husband say George Crossland phoned them, he says they were there before him.
She is aware of the events that occurred in the Ocean Club resort, having had knowledge of the girl's disappearance, by 22H.30 on 03/05/2007, through a telephone call from the administrator George Robin Crosland . http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
According to Silvia Batista she was phoned between 2230 and 2300 and she drove to the OC. she went straight to 5A and entered. She didn't speak to anyone because she was informed that the GNR were at reception. She walked (?) back to reception and discovered that GMC and friend had followed her. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Her husband says they arrived at OC at around 2300. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BATISTA.htm
George Crossland says;
The deponent left toward the local where he arrived at 22H25 and there found John Hill and other functionaries, Silvia Batista, Joao Batista, the former who is employee manager and the latter maintenance; http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBIN_CROSSLAND-1.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on December 13, 2015, 04:26:23 PM
There were actually 4 calls from Gerry to Kate between 23.14 and 23.17, all deleted except for the last one. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
I thought Silvia Batista might help, as she was there, but just discovered more discrepancies. She and her husband say George Crossland phoned them, he says they were there before him.
She is aware of the events that occurred in the Ocean Club resort, having had knowledge of the girl's disappearance, by 22H.30 on 03/05/2007, through a telephone call from the administrator George Robin Crosland . http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
According to Silvia Batista she was phoned between 2230 and 2300 and she drove to the OC. she went straight to 5A and entered. She didn't speak to anyone because she was informed that the GNR were at reception. She walked (?) back to reception and discovered that GMC and friend had followed her. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Her husband says they arrived at OC at around 2300. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BATISTA.htm
George Crossland says;
The deponent left toward the local where he arrived at 22H25 and there found John Hill and other functionaries, Silvia Batista, Joao Batista, the former who is employee manager and the latter maintenance; http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBIN_CROSSLAND-1.htm
I make it 2 calls. I have been translating the analysis of the 74,104 calls/texts made in/out of Luz's 3 antennas from 2-4 May.
The preamble is clear about the following. If a call originating in Luz is made by a phone on operator A and it is received by a phone on operator B, it will show up twice in the records, and may have slightly different details due to the operators running slightly different clocks.
Both calls match this pattern. The start time and durations of each pair means it is either just one call (due to the A B route) or it is two calls that overlap - a physical impossibility.
So, 2 calls not 4. And if Kate had 1 left on her phone, it means 1 was deleted, not 3.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 13, 2015, 06:33:25 PM
I make it 2 calls. I have been translating the analysis of the 74,104 calls/texts made in/out of Luz's 3 antennas from 2-4 May.
The preamble is clear about the following. If a call originating in Luz is made by a phone on operator A and it is received by a phone on operator B, it will show up twice in the records, and may have slightly different details due to the operators running slightly different clocks.
Both calls match this pattern. The start time and durations of each pair means it is either just one call (due to the A B route) or it is two calls that overlap - a physical impossibility.
So, 2 calls not 4. And if Kate had 1 left on her phone, it means 1 was deleted, not 3.
That sounds more like it. Four calls in that timescale seem excessive. I can imagine 2 calls (Police are here)(We are coming back) but not 4.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 14, 2015, 04:52:11 PM
Yes only two calls. Father to mother at 2314 and 2317. Mother is in/near 5A? At 2314 maybe father is outside 24h reception? At 2317 maybe he is still at 24h reception or maybe in patrol car on way from there to 5A? If this is right there was no police search of 5A until at least 80 minutes after the 10pm check.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 15, 2015, 12:36:10 AM
No-one has posted a statement which says "I pulled that sofa out and searched behind it".
It's not an immediately obvious place to search. So who did search behind it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 15, 2015, 01:00:52 AM
No-one has posted a statement which says "I pulled that sofa out and searched behind it".
It's not an immediately obvious place to search. So who did search behind it?
Out of all the areas in 5a, behind the sofa would have been near the top of anyone's search list imo. It had been moved, Amaral said the sofa had been moved, and the curtains behind it had been disturbed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on December 15, 2015, 01:06:54 AM
Out of all the areas in 5a, behind the sofa would have been near the top of anyone's search list imo. It had been moved, Amaral said the sofa had been moved, and the curtains behind it had been disturbed.
Along with under the beds ... into cupboards ... behind curtains ... the sofa is the top item to move to look behind if looking for a child you hope is hiding.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 15, 2015, 02:01:46 AM
No-one mentions moving it to look behind it in their statement.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 15, 2015, 02:22:37 AM
There is nothing to stop police asking a witness "did you search behind the sofa?"
I may be wrong, but I think the PJ would only have been allowed to ask "where did you search inside the apartment?". Please bear in mind where the cadaver odour & "multitude" of blood splatters were later found.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ferryman on December 15, 2015, 09:39:53 AM
Witnesses aren't allowed to be asked leading questions, are they?
That's quite correct.
Principle of 'non-incrimination' ....
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 17, 2015, 02:56:25 PM
Real examples in other cases of locations missed by civilians and police in initial search of the main premises where person resides or last seen at). In kitchen cupboard. In wardrobe behind/under clothes, boxes, etc. Inside chest of drawers. In a room under a big pile of hoarded stuff. Behind a bath panel. In a suitcase. In attic. Under bean bag. Eventuallly someone searches more completely and finds. BTW some of those cases were good result (falls asleep in odd place) some not.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on December 17, 2015, 05:00:31 PM
Real examples in other cases of locations missed by civilians and police in initial search of the main premises where person resides or last seen at). In kitchen cupboard. In wardrobe behind/under clothes, boxes, etc. Inside chest of drawers. In a room under a big pile of hoarded stuff. Behind a bath panel. In a suitcase. In attic. Under bean bag. Eventuallly someone searches more completely and finds. BTW some of those cases were good result (falls asleep in odd place) some not.
The search starts with the last person who saw the missing child? Some say Smithman was the last one seen with her. Wonder if the two match in any way @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 17, 2015, 05:05:14 PM
Real examples in other cases of locations missed by civilians and police in initial search of the main premises where person resides or last seen at). In kitchen cupboard. In wardrobe behind/under clothes, boxes, etc. Inside chest of drawers. In a room under a big pile of hoarded stuff. Behind a bath panel. In a suitcase. In attic. Under bean bag. Eventuallly someone searches more completely and finds. BTW some of those cases were good result (falls asleep in odd place) some not.
Which places from those you have listed would you exclude from finding a)a living child & b)a cadaver
in a sparsely equipped & furnished one storey tiled-floor holiday apartment?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 17, 2015, 05:06:54 PM
The search starts with the last person who saw the missing child? Some say Smithman was the last one seen with her. Wonder if the two match in any way @)(++(*
No gloves & no cross-contamination, P/F. How many more times?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 18, 2015, 12:51:56 AM
Which places from those you have listed would you exclude from finding a)a living child & b)a cadaver
in a sparsely equipped & furnished one storey tiled-floor holiday apartment?
To fully search for either requires looking in every space Misty I wouldn't exclude anywhere. BTW in these examples - under bed, in kitchen cupboard, under bean bag, in chest of drawers, in suitcase, the missing child had deliberately gone to that location and curled up and fallen asleep, but was not found in the early search despite supposedly complete search by relatives and by multiple police officers. They were found (in these cases asleep) typically an hour or several hours later. All those cases were small residences, I don't think whether it is one or two floors makes any difference.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 18, 2015, 01:12:55 AM
To fully search for either requires looking in every space Misty I wouldn't exclude anywhere. BTW in these examples - under bed, in kitchen cupboard, under bean bag, in chest of drawers, in suitcase, the missing child had deliberately gone to that location and curled up and fallen asleep, but was not found in the early search despite supposedly complete search by relatives and by multiple police officers. They were found (in these cases asleep) typically an hour or several hours later. All those cases were small residences, I don't think whether it is one or two floors makes any difference.
I think it is important to differentiate between the places a living child would hide & the places in which someone would attempt to conceal a cadaver. For instance - a living young child could not conceal itself behind a bath panel secured from the outside or in a zipped-up suitcase on a wardrobe shelf. Could a living child have concealed itself within the drawers in the bedroom furniture? Would the parents have issued a call to the police with an invitation into the apartment, complete with dogs, if they knew there was a cadaver concealed somewhere within?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on December 18, 2015, 10:05:18 AM
No gloves & no cross-contamination, P/F. How many more times?
You should realise by now that Eddie is searching for the strongest scent source (months later) and he positively alerted twice in that apartment and he won't alert unless 100% certain. Eddie examined no clothes in that video that matched Smithman's attire. You're grasping at straws.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 18, 2015, 09:48:11 PM
I think it is important to differentiate between the places a living child would hide & the places in which someone would attempt to conceal a cadaver. For instance - a living young child could not conceal itself behind a bath panel secured from the outside or in a zipped-up suitcase on a wardrobe shelf. Could a living child have concealed itself within the drawers in the bedroom furniture? Would the parents have issued a call to the police with an invitation into the apartment, complete with dogs, if they knew there was a cadaver concealed somewhere within?
I dont think any parents innocent or guilty would "invite" police in to search for their alive or dead kid..both scenarios are illogical are they not?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 18, 2015, 10:04:35 PM
I have explained to you many times that a belief is not a fact...but often belief is all the police have to go on. even if a case goes to court the verdict is based on what the jury believe
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on December 18, 2015, 10:28:19 PM
I have explained to you many times that a belief is not a fact...but often belief is all the police have to go on. even if a case goes to court the verdict is based on what the jury believe
A court case would require evidence.
There is none for abduction.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 18, 2015, 10:33:07 PM
Not one iota..especially since Redwood destroyed the main circumstancial piece of evidence aka tannerman...then there was nothing left..absolutely nothing at all
But the Drs Mccann defy SY and continue to ask the public for info in the discredited tannerman...must be working soooo close together with SY, NOT! Or harming their own search. Oh dear
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 18, 2015, 10:33:42 PM
there is evidence to support abduction according to SY...and me....even though evidence is produced in court it may not be conclusive and the jury decides on a verdict based on what they believe
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 18, 2015, 10:33:56 PM
I have explained to you many times that a belief is not a fact...but often belief is all the police have to go on. even if a case goes to court the verdict is based on what the jury believe
Very true. For this case to go to court we will need a perpetrator to be charged in Portugal. First catch your perp.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 18, 2015, 10:35:53 PM
Not one iota..especially since Redwood destroyed the main circumstancial piece of evidence aka tannerman...then there was nothing left..absolutely nothing at all
I wouldn't agree at all...if you accept tannerman as circumstantial evidence ...which you have...then smithman is evidence too...and there is more..again...SY's opinion is abduction based on the evidence
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on December 18, 2015, 10:39:25 PM
Which place that concealed a living child, who was never seen again, was overlooked in your opinion?
In the statements there are several places no-one mentions searching. Behind sofa "E" is one, and there are others. If a child is not awake it is very easy to search assuming they are awake and overlook them. There are many other cases where this has happened (completely missed in the early search and then found hours later under a beanbag or in a kitchen cupboard or in a suitcase or under a bed or in a chest of drawers - all real case BTW).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on December 30, 2015, 03:35:57 AM
In the statements there are several places no-one mentions searching. Behind sofa "E" is one, and there are others. If a child is not awake it is very easy to search assuming they are awake and overlook them. There are many other cases where this has happened (completely missed in the early search and then found hours later under a beanbag or in a kitchen cupboard or in a suitcase or under a bed or in a chest of drawers - all real case BTW).
From just after 10pm, there was always someone in the apartment until the CSI duo departed (3am?) & then there was supposedly a GNR officer guarding the scene until morning. I understand the implications of the other cases, but the apartment was so compact...and rather noisy for periods of time....I just don't see that a living child wouldn't have been discovered.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 30, 2015, 03:55:11 AM
From just after 10pm, there was always someone in the apartment until the CSI duo departed (3am?) & then there was supposedly a GNR officer guarding the scene until morning. I understand the implications of the other cases, but the apartment was so compact...and rather noisy for periods of time....I just don't see that a living child wouldn't have been discovered.
Other cases include compact residences with searchers continuously in them. Often a searcher has actually looked in the exact place where the child is but has failed to see them. That happened in the beanbag case and suitcase case and kitchencupboard case.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 30, 2015, 04:04:32 AM
Here is a case where a searcher even looks in exactly the correct place but fails to look properly. "he had already checked the suitcase for his daughter, but failed to spot her" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195223/Missing-year-old-home-asleep-suitcase.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 30, 2015, 04:13:32 AM
Another suitcase case. Four hours after the house had supposedly been completely searched - and while search parties and a police helicopter were scouring the surrounding areas, "a policeman saw the case in an upstairs room bouncing around on its own" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-516770/Jamie-Lee-6-sparks-police-hunt-falling-asleep-suitcase-grandpas-house.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 30, 2015, 05:02:23 AM
Failing to see what a missed child in a house search could mean in this case...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on December 30, 2015, 09:14:41 AM
Another suitcase case. Four hours after the house had supposedly been completely searched - and while search parties and a police helicopter were scouring the surrounding areas, "a policeman saw the case in an upstairs room bouncing around on its own" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-516770/Jamie-Lee-6-sparks-police-hunt-falling-asleep-suitcase-grandpas-house.html
Do you think she's still in the apartment then pegasus?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 30, 2015, 09:55:57 PM
Do you think she's still in the apartment then pegasus?
Now? No. The only remote possibility there would be if there is some undiscovered cavity for example for services in the large volume of presumably completely filled subfloor which results from the north to south slope of the plot
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 30, 2015, 10:18:18 PM
Failing to see what a missed child in a house search could mean in this case...
There was a police search of the residence at about 2315 which was IMO rushed and incomplete, so how can anyone possibly claim to know there was nothing there then, when they didn't look everywhere? The assumption "oh someone's searched the residence already so there is definitely nothing there so no point in searching it again" has been the embarrassing failure of search in many other real cases.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on December 30, 2015, 10:39:17 PM
There was a police search of the residence at about 2315 which was IMO rushed and incomplete, so how can anyone possibly claim to know there was nothing there then, when they didn't look everywhere? The assumption "oh someone's searched the residence already so there is definitely nothing there so no point in searching it again" has been the embarrassing failure of search in many other real cases.
And? Child was hiding? then what? Intruder killed child and removed later Parents hid child and removed later
??
You really need to help here peggy
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 30, 2015, 11:07:10 PM
And? Child was hiding? then what? Intruder killed child and removed later Parents hid child and removed later
??
You really need to help here peggy
If the police search inside at about 23.15 was incomplete then the missing person could have been in the apartment at that time. That is just common sense deduction. I don't have a big theory to explain how that would fit with everything else. In real cases where a missing person was inside the obvious residence but was completely missed by the early searches by family and police searches, many of them involve nothing more than curling up in a very strange place often in or behind or under things and falling asleep, then there's one or maybe two cases of a fall in which objects fell on top accidentally concealing, then there's several of deliberate concealment. Once the assumption that the person has left the residence has taken hold, it is mistakenly treated as fact.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on December 30, 2015, 11:08:03 PM
Not when she was seen heading towards the sea.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 30, 2015, 11:30:14 PM
I am not ruling out the Smith sighting Pathfinder but you seem to have decided on a single path, and IMO it is safer to investigate many branching paths without assuming which is correct. Already by about 23.30 the assumption that the missing person was definitely not in the residence was being treated as an indisputable fact - it had taken such a strong psychological hold that the 3rd police officer to arrive (the post commander) did not even consider it necessary to search the residence more completely and actually he didn't even go inside
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on December 30, 2015, 11:49:08 PM
It's the path that's right. All others come to nothing as SY have discovered.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on December 31, 2015, 12:33:14 AM
It's the path that's right. All others come to nothing as SY have discovered.
But as Mr R said, SY certainly did investigate the Smith sighting, and they didn't solve the case. Back to "so what actual searching was there?", when the first PJ team arrived, they made absolutely no search inside the apartment. Why?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on January 01, 2016, 02:07:42 AM
List of people who searched behind sofa "E" ... ? List of people who searched under the pile of laundry ... ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on January 01, 2016, 02:26:58 AM
But as Mr R said, SY certainly did investigate the Smith sighting, and they didn't solve the case. Back to "so what actual searching was there?", when the first PJ team arrived, they made absolutely no search inside the apartment. Why?
Perhaps because they were told by the parents that they had opened every door and looked under each bed and they must have exhausted that search to go tampering at shutters.....still to this day have not had a logical reason why......and at least one police officer did exactly the same ie look in cupboards etc
You may have a pointt that not every cm was checked at the time meticulously...but if it doesnt link to any theory or fact thereafter what happened to the child I dont see the point??
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on January 01, 2016, 03:49:27 AM
If there were spaces inside which no-one in their statements says they searched, then it is possible that what they were searching for was in one of those spaces.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on January 01, 2016, 03:58:35 AM
On the 4th there was a helicopter over PDL, searching (with IR vision IMO although I dont have a source for the IR). Why didn't the helicopter find anything?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on January 01, 2016, 08:15:47 PM
If there were spaces inside which no-one in their statements says they searched, then it is possible that what they were searching for was in one of those spaces.
If correct, then the chld was in the flat past 11pm which will exclude as relevant the tannerman and smithman sightings....youve said you dont have a theory what happened next...why keep on about this if its not to suggest a very late remova possible by ....?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on January 02, 2016, 05:12:09 AM
If correct, then the chld was in the flat past 11pm which will exclude as relevant the tannerman and smithman sightings....youve said you dont have a theory what happened next...why keep on about this if its not to suggest a very late remova possible by ....?
IMO both those sightings of open uncontained carrying are irrelevant Merc. It would be a ridiculously risky method.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 02, 2016, 01:16:51 PM
IMO both those sightings of open uncontained carrying are irrelevant Merc. It would be a ridiculously risky method.
If you commit a crime then risk is involved. It's how you lower that risk. When you work that out then you will unmask him because he won't do it himself 8)--))
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on January 02, 2016, 01:35:15 PM
List of people who searched behind sofa "E" ... ? List of people who searched under the pile of laundry ... ?
Are you saying that Madeleine could have been under the pile of laundry? Or in a suitcase?
5a was locked when the the McCann's went to their friends apartment the night Madeleine disappeared so when would they taken the suitcase from 5a?
Also photo's were taken of the wardrobe with the suitcase inside it.
No one saw the McCann's walking around the area with a suitcase either, it would have been very risky for them to have gone outside with a suitcase wouldn't it?
Or am I jumping to conclusions? it is what I think you are hinting at.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on January 02, 2016, 08:04:25 PM
The sight was common so not a risk in that regard but
Tannerman = by time and location maxed out risk strategy Smithman - not so high risk for both reasons
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that Tannerman was not the alledged abductor...disputed obviously by some
It is far less easy to identify a man carrying a child around a tourist resort in darkened streets than it is to identify a vehicle seen unusually parked near a crime scene for a short period of time.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 03, 2016, 02:02:30 AM
It is far less easy to identify a man carrying a child around a tourist resort in darkened streets than it is to identify a vehicle seen unusually parked near a crime scene for a short period of time.
Gerry, Jez, Jane, Russell and Matt didn't see a vehicle parked near to the crime scene on their checks so what vehicle are you referring to? The Moyles were out on their balcony above and said all was quiet. When the 9 arrived at the tapas bar at different times none said there was a vehicle parked close to the apartment or seeing anybody close by. Nobody heard or saw a car pulling away fast on the night so before you start claiming possibilities then first have some evidence to back it up. No tractor was seen either! By all accounts a child disappeared on a quiet deserted night with many people passing by. The missing child was as quiet as her twin siblings. The PJ biggest mistake was not testing them straight away before Mad Buck arrived on the scene. The McCanns for not demanding it to be done is most suspicious. They knew their daughter had been abducted and their twins didn't wake up (the mother checking they were breathing!) and they did nothing about it. Any good detective would be keeping a close eye on them!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on January 03, 2016, 02:19:51 AM
Gerry, Jez, Jane, Russell and Matt didn't see a vehicle parked near to the crime scene on their checks so what vehicle are you referring to? The Moyles were out on their balcony above and said all was quiet. When the 9 arrived at the tapas bar at different times none said there was a vehicle parked close to the apartment or seeing anybody close by. Nobody heard or saw a car pulling away fast on the night so before you start claiming possibilities then first have some evidence to back it up. No tractor was seen either! By all accounts a child disappeared on a quiet deserted night with many people passing by. The missing child was as quiet as her twin siblings. The PJ biggest mistake was not testing them straight away before Mad Buck arrived on the scene. The McCanns for not demanding it to be done is most suspicious. They knew they're child had been abducted and their twins didn't wake up and they did nothing about it. Any good detective would be keeping a close eye on them!
I was referring to a vehicle being a higher-risk strategy than open walking with a child in arms after dark in an area where this was not abnormal. A vehicle, if observed, is more easily traceable than a man carrying a child. In 8 years, a man carrying a child in Rua 25 de Abril was only seen by one family and has never been identified. In 8 years a man carrying a child across the junction at Rua de Martins may or may not have been identified. A stationary vehicle is difficult to conceal. It is static until getaway. A person has fluid movement, capable of better concealment & increased number of routes for getaway.
The PJ's biggest mistake was leaving the GNR to handle the situation overnight.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on January 03, 2016, 03:42:35 AM
I was referring to a vehicle being a higher-risk strategy than open walking with a child in arms after dark in an area where this was not abnormal. A vehicle, if observed, is more easily traceable than a man carrying a child. In 8 years, a man carrying a child in Rua 25 de Abril was only seen by one family and has never been identified. In 8 years a man carrying a child across the junction at Rua de Martins may or may not have been identified. A stationary vehicle is difficult to conceal. It is static until getaway. A person has fluid movement, capable of better concealment & increased number of routes for getaway.
The PJ's biggest mistake was leaving the GNR to handle the situation overnight.
Transporting someone or something on foot without using a bag means everyone can see exactly what is being transported. Use a car, and no-one can see what is being transported.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 03, 2016, 10:00:10 AM
Transporting someone or something on foot without using a bag means everyone can see exactly what is being transported. Use a car, and no-one can see what is being transported.
Smithman didn't have a car and that is obvious. The Smiths only saw the last stage not the first.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on January 03, 2016, 01:40:01 PM
Smithman didn't have a car and that is obvious. The Smiths only saw the last stage not the first.
Smithman did not have a car at the time he was seen by the Smiths. As has been pointed out a possibility is that he parked a car just to the north of the sighting, where there is ample parking, and continued to his destination on foot.
Strangely enough, a lot of people drive cars in Luz, and several of those feature around the time of the disappearance. The idea that Luz was a car-free zone at the time is nonsense.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 03, 2016, 03:54:19 PM
Smithman did not have a car at the time he was seen by the Smiths. As has been pointed out a possibility is that he parked a car just to the north of the sighting, where there is ample parking, and continued to his destination on foot.
Strangely enough, a lot of people drive cars in Luz, and several of those feature around the time of the disappearance. The idea that Luz was a car-free zone at the time is nonsense.
Strangely enough many places have cars but it's irrelevant. I follow evidence not shadows. The first stage was by foot just like the last but at different times - he ain't dumb! Detectives would have investigated all the night creche parents and none match.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on January 03, 2016, 04:03:27 PM
Given the number of people who were wandering around Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared I cannot see any kidnapper wanting to carry his victim for any great distance. In reality, a kidnapper, if there was one, would have parked a vehicle nearby just out of sight and carried his victim the shortest distance possible. I think this was explained by Sadie yonks ago.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 03, 2016, 04:06:20 PM
I agree if this was a normal kidnapping but it wasn't.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on January 03, 2016, 08:45:36 PM
Strangely enough many places have cars but it's irrelevant. I follow evidence not shadows. The first stage was by foot just like the last but at different times - he ain't dumb! Detectives would have investigated all the night creche parents and none match.
Please feel free to follow evidence, not shadows.
The PJ Files are full of cars that night.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on January 03, 2016, 09:15:39 PM
Given the number of people who were wandering around Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared I cannot see any kidnapper wanting to carry his victim for any great distance. In reality, a kidnapper, if there was one, would have parked a vehicle nearby just out of sight and carried his victim the shortest distance possible. I think this was explained by Sadie yonks ago.
You wouldn't need or risk a car if your house/garage/storage area was in close proximity to 5a.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on January 03, 2016, 09:48:25 PM
Deleted...irrelevant now
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on January 03, 2016, 10:01:48 PM
Youd need to be insane or at least a sociopath though or a wannabee marvel comic character if that were the case....got suggestions?
There were many properties around 5a, most of which were not even searched by the PJ who relied on the goodwill of the occupants (holiday-makers or owner-occupiers) for assurances that Madeleine was not on the premises. The same applied to vehicles. IMO it is quite probable that the person who may have taken Madeleine resided/ stayed very close to 5a during that week and their premises were not searched within the first 48 hrs, if at all.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on January 03, 2016, 10:49:43 PM
There were many properties around 5a, most of which were not even searched by the PJ who relied on the goodwill of the occupants (holiday-makers or owner-occupiers) for assurances that Madeleine was not on the premises. The same applied to vehicles. IMO it is quite probable that the person who may have taken Madeleine resided/ stayed very close to 5a during that week and their premises were not searched within the first 48 hrs, if at all.
But where is the evidence? Theories are fine but
Maybes and possibles have been done to death for 8 years by 3 police forces and several PI agencies not one solid piece of abduction evidence
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on January 03, 2016, 10:57:17 PM
Evidence of what? You can't find evidence if you're not searching in the right areas in the right timeframe. The first searches were for a solo missing child on foot, nothing more.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on January 03, 2016, 11:00:42 PM
Evidence of what? You can't find evidence if you're not searching in the right areas in the right timeframe. The first searches were for a solo missing child on foot, nothing more.
What was wrong with that?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 09:24:30 PM
"Flat-owner Mrs M ... says Portuguese detectives did not even open one of the cupboards" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-holiday-flat-is-up-128688
Which cupboard is the owner talking about? How does the owner know detectives didn't open it? Does anyone have any better source for this statement by the owner please?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 29, 2016, 12:47:43 AM
"Flat-owner Mrs M ... says Portuguese detectives did not even open one of the cupboards" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-holiday-flat-is-up-128688
Which cupboard is the owner talking about? How does the owner know detectives didn't open it? Does anyone have any better source for this statement by the owner please?
Flat-owner Mrs McCann – who says Portuguese detectives did not even open one of the cupboards – said: “I reacted with absolute horror and I felt immediate sympathy with her parents. Even now I think about Maddy frequently and wonder whether she will ever be found.”
Hmmm ... interesting Pegasus. I think maybe the only way she could determine whether or not a cupboard had not been opened would be if it was locked and the key hadn't been accessed?? Storage cupboard, but where?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on May 29, 2016, 12:56:28 AM
Flat-owner Mrs McCann – who says Portuguese detectives did not even open one of the cupboards – said: “I reacted with absolute horror and I felt immediate sympathy with her parents. Even now I think about Maddy frequently and wonder whether she will ever be found.”
Hmmm ... interesting Pegasus. I think maybe the only way she could determine whether or not a cupboard had not been opened would be if it was locked and the key hadn't been accessed?? Storage cupboard, but where?
You really do shoot yourself in the foot sometimes Brietta. While on the other thread you berated G-Unit's quotes from the files as 'incomplete and inaccurate' you now find 'interesting' a tabloid article with absolute no worth other than it fits your myopic view of the case
Utter hypocrisy.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on May 29, 2016, 01:07:46 AM
Flat-owner Mrs McCann – who says Portuguese detectives did not even open one of the cupboards – said: “I reacted with absolute horror and I felt immediate sympathy with her parents. Even now I think about Maddy frequently and wonder whether she will ever be found.”
Hmmm ... interesting Pegasus. I think maybe the only way she could determine whether or not a cupboard had not been opened would be if it was locked and the key hadn't been accessed?? Storage cupboard, but where?
Or does "Portuguese detectives did not even open one of the cupboards" mean "Portuguese detectives did not open any of the cupboards"?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on May 29, 2016, 01:17:35 AM
You really do shoot yourself in the foot sometimes Brietta. While on the other thread you berated G-Unit's quotes from the files as 'incomplete and inaccurate' you now find 'interesting' a tabloid article with absolute no worth other than it fits your myopic view of the case
Utter hypocrisy.
*irony klaxon*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 29, 2016, 01:31:01 AM
Or does "Portuguese detectives did not even open one of the cupboards" mean "Portuguese detectives did not open any of the cupboards"?
The GNR officers' statements said they did ??? even opened the washing machine ??? I think I am correct in remembering that. However, I cannot believe that they did not search in all the obvious places such as cupboards and wardrobes even if you have your suspicions about the couch.
Mrs McCann could only have made that statement if she knew something was undisturbed. Therefore a cupboard which was somewhere out of sight ... where, I have no idea because the apartment did not share the stair well.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on May 31, 2016, 12:28:24 AM
That is exactly what it means and it is obviously a crock of the proverbial, placed there by someone else and not the flat owner. No brainer.
But its actually true Merc, when the PJ officers arrived that night they did not search the apartment at all. Anythink could have been concealed in a cupboard at 1 AM and the PJ would not have found it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on May 31, 2016, 12:38:36 AM
But its actually true Merc, when the PJ officers arrived that night they did not search the apartment at all. Anythink could have been concealed in a cupboard at 1 AM and the PJ would not have found it.
Youre wrong, the police did nothng all night, remember? They just stood there, for show for hours then just left (Cough) http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA.htm Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see the washing machine. He did not see anything strange during the search and there was no sign of a break in. As regards the bed clothes of the child’s bed, he found it to have a normal disposition.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on May 31, 2016, 12:57:19 AM
But its actually true Merc, when the PJ officers arrived that night they did not search the apartment at all. Anythink could have been concealed in a cupboard at 1 AM and the PJ would not have found it.
What about the GNR officer?
Processos Volume XII
Pages 3281 - 3284
Witness Statement
José María Batista Roque
Date: 17 – 10 - 2007
snip "Then, while his colleague remained in the hall, and the others were in the living room, the witness went through the entire apartment. He opened all the cupboards in the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and checked under the beds and inside the washing machine. He did not see the fridge.
During the search he did not find anything strange apart from the bedclothes on Madeleine's bed, which were too tidy, it appeared that she had been picked up from or had left the bed with great care. There was a mark on the sheet that appeared to be made by a child's body."
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 31, 2016, 08:53:08 AM
On topic, the Mccanns stopped searching the morning after Madeleine disappeared.
After all, they were busy doing other things.
Cite, the interview with Jane Hill of the BBC.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 31, 2016, 11:28:44 AM
On topic, the Mccanns stopped searching the morning after Madeleine disappeared.
After all, they were busy doing other things.
Cite, the interview with Jane Hill of the BBC.
Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 4th of May 2007, at 11.15 a.m. Processos Vol I, pages 34 - 41 Location: CID Portimão
Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, on the 4th of May 2007, at 2.20 p.m. Processos Vol I, pages 58-65 Location: CID Portimão
They were being interviewed by the police on the 4th May and giving them information to assist the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter.
If you must make a pejorative statement please try to base it on fact. Apart from anything else it is not recommended that the parents of a missing child physically search for a missing child for many reasons two of which are ...
the parents should be available to answer any queries from the police search teams
the danger of contaminating a crime scene and destroying evidence should they find the body of the missing child ~ it is highly likely the first thing a parent would do would be to run and cradle the child's body
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 31, 2016, 11:31:30 AM
Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 4th of May 2007, at 11.15 a.m. Processos Vol I, pages 34 - 41 Location: CID Portimão
Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, on the 4th of May 2007, at 2.20 p.m. Processos Vol I, pages 58-65 Location: CID Portimão
They were being interviewed by the police on the 4th May and giving them information to assist the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter.
If you must make a pejorative statement please try to base it on fact. Apart from anything else it is not recommended that the parents of a missing child physically search for a missing child for many reasons two of which are ...
the parents should be available to answer any queries from the police search teams
the danger of contaminating a crime scene and destroying evidence should they find the body of the missing child ~ it is highly likely the first thing a parent would do would be to run and cradle the child's body
The crime scene was already contaminated.
NO ONE stopped the McCann's searching.
The Mccann's were interviewed. Nothing stopped them searching afterwards.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on May 31, 2016, 11:42:27 AM
As we are often reminded, a lack of confirmatory evidence, or just evidence, does not mean it doesn't exist.
I think you've missed the point Stephen which was that if a body had been found in the surrounding area - then that would become the crime scene. If the parents had found the body - there would be a strong possibility that they would run to her and touch her and therefore risk contaminating the scene.
Best therefore to listen to the police and stay at home - which is what they did.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 31, 2016, 12:25:56 PM
Gerry and Kate McCann give their first television interview after their daughter's abduction in Portugal. The interview, which was conducted by the BBC's Jane Hill, was first broadcast on 25 May 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7371013.stm
You said, "On topic, the Mccanns stopped searching the morning after Madeleine disappeared. After all, they were busy doing other things. Cite, the interview with Jane Hill of the BBC."
You are correct that they "were busy doing other things" than searching for Madeleine ... they were doing the more important job of giving the PJ all the information they could to facilitate the official PJ search for Madeleine.
Why do you think two exhausted, distraught and emotionally drained individuals whose daughter had just vanished and who were convinced she was in the hands of a stranger should not have been doing that? (assisting the police)
Why do you think had they physically searched when you insist they should have been searching would have made the slightest difference or enhanced the searches being carried out by parties reported to be in their hundreds searching every corner of Luz?
Why do you think publicising a missing child is such a bad thing to do?
Why haven't you noticed the unceasing search for her that Madeleine's parents have been pursuing for the last nine years ... apart from constant criticism of them and every effort they make on Madeleine's behalf?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 31, 2016, 12:26:37 PM
I think you've missed the point Stephen which was that if a body had been found in the surrounding area - then that would become the crime scene. If the parents had found the body - there would be a strong possibility that they would run to her and touch her and therefore risk contaminating the scene.
Best therefore to listen to the police and stay at home - which is what they did.
The mccanns have not searched since the morning after Madeleine's disappearance.
So when will they do so again ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 31, 2016, 12:28:06 PM
Gerry and Kate McCann give their first television interview after their daughter's abduction in Portugal. The interview, which was conducted by the BBC's Jane Hill, was first broadcast on 25 May 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7371013.stm
You said, "On topic, the Mccanns stopped searching the morning after Madeleine disappeared. After all, they were busy doing other things. Cite, the interview with Jane Hill of the BBC."
You are correct that they "were busy doing other things" than searching for Madeleine ... they were doing the more important job of giving the PJ all the information they could to facilitate the official PJ search for Madeleine.
Why do you think two exhausted, distraught and emotionally drained individuals whose daughter had just vanished and who were convinced she was in the hands of a stranger should not have been doing that?
Why do you think had they physically searched when you insist they should have been searching would have made the slightest difference or enhanced the searches being carried out by parties reported to be in their hundreds searching every corner of Luz?
Why do you think publicising a missing child si such a bad thing to do?
Why haven't you noticed the unceasing search for her that Madeleine's parents have been pursuing for the last nine years ... apart from constant criticism of them and every effort they make on Madeleine's behalf?
Just remind me Brietta, which two people triggered this case.
Nothing you can say will change that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 01, 2016, 12:06:34 AM
Gerry and Kate McCann give their first television interview after their daughter's abduction in Portugal. The interview, which was conducted by the BBC's Jane Hill, was first broadcast on 25 May 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7371013.stm
You said, "On topic, the Mccanns stopped searching the morning after Madeleine disappeared. After all, they were busy doing other things. Cite, the interview with Jane Hill of the BBC."
You are correct that they "were busy doing other things" than searching for Madeleine ... they were doing the more important job of giving the PJ all the information they could to facilitate the official PJ search for Madeleine.
Why do you think two exhausted, distraught and emotionally drained individuals whose daughter had just vanished and who were convinced she was in the hands of a stranger should not have been doing that? (assisting the police)
Why do you think had they physically searched when you insist they should have been searching would have made the slightest difference or enhanced the searches being carried out by parties reported to be in their hundreds searching every corner of Luz?
Why do you think publicising a missing child is such a bad thing to do?
Why haven't you noticed the unceasing search for her that Madeleine's parents have been pursuing for the last nine years ... apart from constant criticism of them and every effort they make on Madeleine's behalf?
How do you do bullet points in here brietta?
In answer to one of them perhaps madeleine mccann might have answered to her parents voices?
Kate stayed indoors all night saying it was too cold and dark!!!
People would look for their cats and dogs whatever the weather
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 01, 2016, 02:45:12 AM
Read the statements of V.Martins and J.Barreiras (the two PJ officers who attended at about 1pm). Neither of them did any searching of the apartment at all. They both took for granted that the GNR had searched the apartment fully (which they hadn't).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 01, 2016, 03:22:05 PM
In answer to one of them perhaps madeleine mccann might have answered to her parents voices?
Kate stayed indoors all night saying it was too cold and dark!!!
People would look for their cats and dogs whatever the weather
Look above the clappy hand emoticon you will see two boxes one with blocks, one with numbers. Click on the one you want to use. Ignore the top line telling you the list type ~ list or decimal. Type within the bracketed li and / li and that should do it for you.
There would have been absolutely no point searching in the pitch dark when they could have passed within inches of Madeleine without being able to see her. They were out searching at first light when no-one else was.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 01, 2016, 11:50:46 PM
Look above the clappy hand emoticon you will see two boxes one with blocks, one with numbers. Click on the one you want to use. Ignore the top line telling you the list type ~ list or decimal. Type within the bracketed li and / li and that should do it for you.
There would have been absolutely no point searching in the pitch dark when they could have passed within inches of Madeleine without being able to see her. They were out searching at first light when no-one else was.
1. Thank you 2. Torches 3. Because they had been up all night to the dawn 4. Never mind ey?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 02, 2016, 02:22:40 AM
(snip) There would have been absolutely no point searching in the pitch dark when they could have passed within inches of Madeleine without being able to see her. (snip)
Soon after the alarm, the moon rose, and it was a full moon - ideal for searching.
"the moon was out later on" (source: MO Rog)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 02, 2016, 02:45:21 AM
Elvis and Lord L could have been hidden in that apartment at 1 AM and the 2 PJ officers wouldn't have found them, they did not search the apartment IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 02, 2016, 02:49:50 AM
Elvis and Lord L could have been hidden in that apartment at 1 AM and the 2 PJ officers wouldn't have found them, they did not search the apartment IMO.
You keep saying this as a possibility but dont offer a single possibility for after, so how can we move on from the scenario that a child dead or alive was missed in the search of the flat by oarents friends and police?catch up tomorrow
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 02, 2016, 03:01:49 AM
You keep saying this as a possibility but dont offer a single possibility for after, so how can we move on from the scenario that a child dead or alive was missed in the search of the flat by oarents friends and police?catch up tomorrow
IMO following probable behaviours tiny step by tiny step may lead eventually to a solution, no matter how ridiculously impossible it seems in advance Merc.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on June 02, 2016, 09:26:23 AM
Elvis and Lord L could have been hidden in that apartment at 1 AM and the 2 PJ officers wouldn't have found them, they did not search the apartment IMO.
These apartments are tiny with only so many hiding places, I would think 5a could have been searched thoroughly in a matter of minutes by two police officers.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 02, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
1. Thank you 2. Torches 3. Because they had been up all night to the dawn 4. Never mind ey?
Can I ask why you are just berating the McCann's for not searching all night for their daughter? They searched everywhere they thought Madeleine may have wandered, then they were with the police. All the families whose children have been abducted here in the UK have searched then left it to the police and rightly so, the police are the ones who take over the search. They organise searches properly so that any evidence is not lost and the parents are not the ones to find their child dead. What grievance do you have with that? By the way there wouldn't be a search party by the police for a missing cat.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on June 02, 2016, 02:24:10 PM
Is it usual for official search teams to be deployed during the hours of darkness?
In a missing child case yes unless doing so could endanger searchers. Eg. severe weather, no lighting etc
In Madeleine's case there just wasn't the manpower available in those early hours. Two cops responding to various alerts around the general area and a supervisor back at base, not exactly a hive of activity. Even the detectives didn't arrive until more than two hours after she was found to be gone.
Thinking out of the box for a moment, by that time she could have been in another country or outside Portuguese territorial waters. She could also have been on a light aircraft operating out of any number of deserted airfields and going just about anywhere.
Personally, I agree with Kate, she never left the Algarve.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 02, 2016, 03:29:25 PM
If the full moon was sufficient light to search by ... why didn't the PJ organise official search teams to conduct searches?
On 4th May, after having evaluated the situation surrounding the disappearance, the Lagos Post Commander ordered searches for the child to take place and contacted officers who were at home, forming a force of nine officers who searched during the night and early morning.
2. At 02.00 they arrived at P da L and began searching with the Portimao sniffer dog teams, the terrain searches were extended until the morning with the dogs and officers on the scene, as well as the night guard and local people who volunteered to help in the searches that took place throughout the night. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
[Interesting snippet from Kate's book re; 4th May interviews;
Gerry told us afterwards that when he’d asked about deploying helicopters and heat-detecting equipment in the search, the police officer interviewing him had replied, ‘This is not the UK.’There were no helicopters and no infra-red cameras, he was told.]
Eureka!
At 16.00 searches using the helicopter were initiated, the helicopter was used for 90 minutes, covering the entire area from the coast line to the EN 125, between the limits of Atalaia and Ponta da Cama da Vaca, this being the limit of the area considered probable for the child to be found, according to the hypothesis that she had left the apartment where she was staying on foot. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
After a short rest I returned to work at 08.00. I did not see Kate or Gerry during the whole morning, but went to the new apartment at about lunchtime. Kate and Gerry were not there but there were other members of the group taking care of the twins.
I remember there were helicopters flying overhead and showing them to the twins. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA-LOUISE.htm [re; 4th May]
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 02, 2016, 08:19:07 PM
Can I ask why you are just berating the McCann's for not searching all night for their daughter? They searched everywhere they thought Madeleine may have wandered, then they were with the police. All the families whose children have been abducted here in the UK have searched then left it to the police and rightly so, the police are the ones who take over the search. They organise searches properly so that any evidence is not lost and the parents are not the ones to find their child dead. What grievance do you have with that? By the way there wouldn't be a search party by the police for a missing cat.
Wandered? I thought Kate said she knew right away that Maddie was abducted- jemmied shutters -open window whooosh... On that note; we do not know what time Maddie was last seen by anyone, so the time scale could have been just after parents left, which would mean a couple of hours Maddie was 'dissapeared' so searching the immediate area would have been fruitless, also, If she were abducted would the abductor hang about waiting to be caught? Hmmm not making any sense is it really.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 02, 2016, 09:37:08 PM
Wandered? I thought Kate said she knew right away that Maddie was abducted- jemmied shutters -open window whooosh... On that note; we do not know what time Maddie was last seen by anyone, so the time scale could have been just after parents left, which would mean a couple of hours Maddie was 'dissapeared' so searching the immediate area would have been fruitless, also, If she were abducted would the abductor hang about waiting to be caught? Hmmm not making any sense is it really.
Were there different stories for different people or was Mr Woolfall so busy talking to the media that he didn't have time to read the papers or watch TV?
October 2007;
Mr Woolfall says that he heard no suggestion in the early days that the girl had been snatched. "Certainly I did not hear any discussion that this could be a paedophile or an aggravated robbery. All the time I was around it was whether she could have wandered off and had an accident or somebody had actually taken her in, perhaps not with ill-intent.
"During the first 48 hours the word being used was 'missing' rather than 'abducted' or any link with a paedophile or any sort of crime. Towards the end of the second week I detected a shift towards there being a consciousness that she had probably been taken rather than wandered off, just on the assumption that anybody would have found her by now.".......
June Wright, Luz resident, speaking on the Channel 4 dispatches documentary 'Searching for Madeleine': "I arrived at the Ocean Club reception at around about 10 to 11 and at the time that we arrived a police car arrived - and as the police officer got out a man approached him, who I now know is Gerry McCann and said that his daughter had been abducted. That there was no way that she could have opened the shutters herself, she'd definitely been taken." http://www.mccannfiles.com/id65.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 02, 2016, 10:37:58 PM
Can I ask why you are just berating the McCann's for not searching all night for their daughter? They searched everywhere they thought Madeleine may have wandered, then they were with the police. All the families whose children have been abducted here in the UK have searched then left it to the police and rightly so, the police are the ones who take over the search. They organise searches properly so that any evidence is not lost and the parents are not the ones to find their child dead. What grievance do you have with that? By the way there wouldn't be a search party by the police for a missing cat.
-You have put words into my mouth - I was not berating just giving comment n the "it was so cold and dark" reason suggested for why KM did not search -I already gave one reason to Brietta how/why KM or anyone else could have looked "in the dark" there is no evidence she personally did, she never said she did n her statements to police, she never she did in years of repeated detailed interviews and documentaries worldwide, but when Madelene the book came out, she told how she sprinted up and down the road and looked in the car park -A response is not required
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 02, 2016, 10:46:29 PM
Were there different stories for different people or was Mr Woolfall so busy talking to the media that he didn't have time to read the papers or watch TV?
October 2007;
Mr Woolfall says that he heard no suggestion in the early days that the girl had been snatched. "Certainly I did not hear any discussion that this could be a paedophile or an aggravated robbery. All the time I was around it was whether she could have wandered off and had an accident or somebody had actually taken her in, perhaps not with ill-intent.
"During the first 48 hours the word being used was 'missing' rather than 'abducted' or any link with a paedophile or any sort of crime. Towards the end of the second week I detected a shift towards there being a consciousness that she had probably been taken rather than wandered off, just on the assumption that anybody would have found her by now.".......
June Wright, Luz resident, speaking on the Channel 4 dispatches documentary 'Searching for Madeleine': "I arrived at the Ocean Club reception at around about 10 to 11 and at the time that we arrived a police car arrived - and as the police officer got out a man approached him, who I now know is Gerry McCann and said that his daughter had been abducted. That there was no way that she could have opened the shutters herself, she'd definitely been taken." http://www.mccannfiles.com/id65.html
Indeed! we have different versions which throws people. Kate claimed she knew what happened to her right away BUT they were searching for a missing child not an abducted one. AND they were pointing to a jemmid shutter/open window no mention of unlocked doors at that point. AND then Jane Tanner who was too afraid to mention before( in case she upset anyone) fessed up she saw the abductor carry maddie away-even though when she was witnessing this at the time she didn't think it was Maddie being abducted... hmm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 02, 2016, 11:08:00 PM
The searches were based on a strategy of searching in "rescue and recovery mode" to locate the missing girl alive or if dead, not as a victim of crime. This search phase lasted for 7 days from the date M McCann went missing. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
I'm puzzled by this.
Madeleine wasn't searched for "as a victim of crime" for 7 days ... under the circumstances of her disappearance, why ever not?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 02, 2016, 11:19:40 PM
Imo it sounds like woke and wondered and got lost/befell an accident, for example, the roadworks being checked to see if she had fallen down a manhole
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 02, 2016, 11:33:36 PM
Immediately there was no result from the necessary preliminary searches ... a missing child protocol should have been implemented.
If it took seven days ... that is seven days too long.
They searched all night, although you thought they didn't. Then they continued for seven days. They being the GNR because that's their area of responsibility.
The PJ were doing other things. I can't be bothered finding the details for you of what they did, but it's in the files if you care to research it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 03, 2016, 12:30:45 AM
Immediately there was no result from the necessary preliminary searches ... a missing child protocol should have been implemented.
If it took seven days ... that is seven days too long.
I was answering your question with what I thught the statement you quoted meant, I dont see anyway how a search for a non victim or victm of crime changes the search??
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: insider on June 03, 2016, 12:38:03 AM
Apologies if I sound a bit rusty on the subject of the searches but I read recently that the McCanns intend to search for Madeleine again. What the hell have they been doing these last 9 years?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 03, 2016, 12:48:02 AM
These apartments are tiny with only so many hiding places, I would think 5a could have been searched thoroughly in a matter of minutes by two police officers.
But the GNR officer did not search the apartment fully. It happens in many documented cases - someone finds the missing child - hours later - in the residence.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 03, 2016, 12:53:15 AM
They searched all night, although you thought they didn't. Then they continued for seven days. They being the GNR because that's their area of responsibility.
The PJ were doing other things. I can't be bothered finding the details for you of what they did, but it's in the files if you care to research it.
I did not think nor did I say they did not search through the night ... on another thread ... on the same subject ... I have used the same quote you did.
Goncalo Amaral became co-ordinator of Madeleine's case on the night she vanished ... he was informed of the disappearance while he was at dinner.
He was in charge of the investigation from that point.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 03, 2016, 12:54:18 AM
But the GNR officer did not search the apartment fully. It happens in many documented cases - someone finds the missing child - hours later - in the residence.
The apartment was ablaze with light when the CSI officers were there.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 03, 2016, 12:56:06 AM
Apologies if I sound a bit rusty on the subject of the searches but I read recently that the McCanns intend to search for Madeleine again. What the hell have they been doing these last 9 years?
Searching ... using private detectives and attempting to have official searches and the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance started again. In this they were successful.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: insider on June 03, 2016, 01:01:34 AM
Searching ... using private detectives and attempting to have official searches and the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance started again. In this they were successful.
They have a strange notion of what searching means. Did they ever think of getting off their backsides and doing some proper searching in portugal?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 03, 2016, 01:05:00 AM
They have a strange notion of what searching means. Did they ever think of getting off their backsides and doing some proper searching in portugal?
As a matter of fact ...
Kate McCann: 'I return to Praia da Luz resort at least once a year to look for Madeleine' Margaret Davis and Jamie Grierson PUBLISHED 01/05/2014 |
The mother of missing Madeleine McCann has revealed that she privately returns to the Portuguese resort where her daughter disappeared to "walk those streets" and "look for answers".
Ahead of the seventh anniversary of her daughter's disappearance, Kate McCann told the BBC that she returns "quietly" to Praia da Luz at least once or twice a year to feel close to her eldest daughter. Madeleine, then aged three, went missing on May 3 2007 from a holiday apartment in the Algarve village as her parents dined at a nearby tapas restaurant with friends.
Asked if she would return to Praia da Luz, Mrs McCann said: "I do go back. I haven't been since last April but I do go back for personal reasons. I might once or twice a year." She went on: "It's difficult because we don't want to go back and generate publicity because I know that local people don't like that... and, while we have some really good friends in Praia da Luz, I know some people would like it to go away.
"So when I go to Praia da Luz, I go quietly." Asked if the visits were a chance to be close to Madeleine, Mrs McCann said: "It is - that was the last place we were with Madeleine, and I'll still walk those streets and I guess try look for answers. It helps me."
Asked what she and husband Gerry would do to mark the seventh anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, she said: "We usually have a small gathering in the village, which we've done the last so many years." But she added that it was Madeleine's birthday, which comes shortly afterwards and would see her turn 11, that was more difficult.
Mrs McCann's comments came as she backed a revamped alert system triggered when missing children are kidnapped or their lives are at risk - known as Child Rescue Alerts. She said: ''When a child is abducted, families are devastated and entire communities are torn apart. The agony of not knowing where your child is is almost impossible to imagine. The helplessness is at times overwhelming.
''But there is now something we can all do to help. Please sign up to receive alerts - you could save a child's life.'' She also spoke of how she would prefer to know the truth about what happened to her daughter, even if it is ''the worst-case scenario''.
She told The Sun: ''If it was down to not knowing, or finding out news that isn't what you want to hear? At the end of the day I can't change that. What would you rather? "I'm not under-estimating the blow of hearing bad news that your child has been killed, because obviously we're not going to go 'OK, at least we know'. But I've spent hours thinking about that and, each time, I still come up thinking we need to know. Regardless, we need to know.''
She went on: ''But there is always the worst-case scenario. That's always been a possibility and anyone who thinks that we're blinkered doesn't know us.'' The new system will allow alerts to be issued via text, email, social media, digital billboards and to the media.
Members of the public can already sign up to receive alerts, although the new system will come into play on International Missing Children's Day on May 25.
A Child Rescue Alert was recently used in the hunt for murdered five-year-old April Jones, and the system is designed to make the most of the ''golden hours'' after a child goes missing. Charlie Hedges, from the National Crime Agency, who helped co-ordinate the appeals, said: ''The success of Child Rescue Alert is down to each and every one of us. I've already been encouraged by the wide range of organisations who have joined us in partnership to offer their support and help launch this invaluable tool.
''Now it's down to the public to sign up for the alerts so we can send the message as widely as possible when a child goes missing.''
Jo Youle, chief executive of the charity Missing People, said ''Every minute after their disappearance is crucial to bringing a child home safely. Child Rescue Alert will now mean the public and companies can help - and hopefully save these children's lives.'' http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/kate-mccann-i-return-to-praia-da-luz-resort-at-least-once-a-year-to-look-for-madeleine-30235604.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: insider on June 03, 2016, 01:12:00 AM
Kate McCann: 'I return to Praia da Luz resort at least once a year to look for Madeleine' Margaret Davis and Jamie Grierson PUBLISHED 01/05/2014 |
The mother of missing Madeleine McCann has revealed that she privately returns to the Portuguese resort where her daughter disappeared to "walk those streets" and "look for answers".
Ahead of the seventh anniversary of her daughter's disappearance, Kate McCann told the BBC that she returns "quietly" to Praia da Luz at least once or twice a year to feel close to her eldest daughter. Madeleine, then aged three, went missing on May 3 2007 from a holiday apartment in the Algarve village as her parents dined at a nearby tapas restaurant with friends.
Asked if she would return to Praia da Luz, Mrs McCann said: "I do go back. I haven't been since last April but I do go back for personal reasons. I might once or twice a year." She went on: "It's difficult because we don't want to go back and generate publicity because I know that local people don't like that... and, while we have some really good friends in Praia da Luz, I know some people would like it to go away.
"So when I go to Praia da Luz, I go quietly." Asked if the visits were a chance to be close to Madeleine, Mrs McCann said: "It is - that was the last place we were with Madeleine, and I'll still walk those streets and I guess try look for answers. It helps me."
Asked what she and husband Gerry would do to mark the seventh anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, she said: "We usually have a small gathering in the village, which we've done the last so many years." But she added that it was Madeleine's birthday, which comes shortly afterwards and would see her turn 11, that was more difficult.
Mrs McCann's comments came as she backed a revamped alert system triggered when missing children are kidnapped or their lives are at risk - known as Child Rescue Alerts. She said: ''When a child is abducted, families are devastated and entire communities are torn apart. The agony of not knowing where your child is is almost impossible to imagine. The helplessness is at times overwhelming.
''But there is now something we can all do to help. Please sign up to receive alerts - you could save a child's life.'' She also spoke of how she would prefer to know the truth about what happened to her daughter, even if it is ''the worst-case scenario''.
She told The Sun: ''If it was down to not knowing, or finding out news that isn't what you want to hear? At the end of the day I can't change that. What would you rather? "I'm not under-estimating the blow of hearing bad news that your child has been killed, because obviously we're not going to go 'OK, at least we know'. But I've spent hours thinking about that and, each time, I still come up thinking we need to know. Regardless, we need to know.''
She went on: ''But there is always the worst-case scenario. That's always been a possibility and anyone who thinks that we're blinkered doesn't know us.'' The new system will allow alerts to be issued via text, email, social media, digital billboards and to the media.
Members of the public can already sign up to receive alerts, although the new system will come into play on International Missing Children's Day on May 25.
A Child Rescue Alert was recently used in the hunt for murdered five-year-old April Jones, and the system is designed to make the most of the ''golden hours'' after a child goes missing. Charlie Hedges, from the National Crime Agency, who helped co-ordinate the appeals, said: ''The success of Child Rescue Alert is down to each and every one of us. I've already been encouraged by the wide range of organisations who have joined us in partnership to offer their support and help launch this invaluable tool.
''Now it's down to the public to sign up for the alerts so we can send the message as widely as possible when a child goes missing.''
Jo Youle, chief executive of the charity Missing People, said ''Every minute after their disappearance is crucial to bringing a child home safely. Child Rescue Alert will now mean the public and companies can help - and hopefully save these children's lives.'' http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/kate-mccann-i-return-to-praia-da-luz-resort-at-least-once-a-year-to-look-for-madeleine-30235604.html
WOW!! thats big of her. Once a year! Sounds more like someone making a pilgrimage than a search.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 03, 2016, 01:13:36 AM
Kate McCann: 'I return to Praia da Luz resort at least once a year to look for Madeleine' Margaret Davis and Jamie Grierson PUBLISHED 01/05/2014 |
The mother of missing Madeleine McCann has revealed that she privately returns to the Portuguese resort where her daughter disappeared to "walk those streets" and "look for answers".
Ahead of the seventh anniversary of her daughter's disappearance, Kate McCann told the BBC that she returns "quietly" to Praia da Luz at least once or twice a year to feel close to her eldest daughter. Madeleine, then aged three, went missing on May 3 2007 from a holiday apartment in the Algarve village as her parents dined at a nearby tapas restaurant with friends.
Asked if she would return to Praia da Luz, Mrs McCann said: "I do go back. I haven't been since last April but I do go back for personal reasons. I might once or twice a year." She went on: "It's difficult because we don't want to go back and generate publicity because I know that local people don't like that... and, while we have some really good friends in Praia da Luz, I know some people would like it to go away.
"So when I go to Praia da Luz, I go quietly." Asked if the visits were a chance to be close to Madeleine, Mrs McCann said: "It is - that was the last place we were with Madeleine, and I'll still walk those streets and I guess try look for answers. It helps me."
Asked what she and husband Gerry would do to mark the seventh anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, she said: "We usually have a small gathering in the village, which we've done the last so many years." But she added that it was Madeleine's birthday, which comes shortly afterwards and would see her turn 11, that was more difficult.
Mrs McCann's comments came as she backed a revamped alert system triggered when missing children are kidnapped or their lives are at risk - known as Child Rescue Alerts. She said: ''When a child is abducted, families are devastated and entire communities are torn apart. The agony of not knowing where your child is is almost impossible to imagine. The helplessness is at times overwhelming.
''But there is now something we can all do to help. Please sign up to receive alerts - you could save a child's life.'' She also spoke of how she would prefer to know the truth about what happened to her daughter, even if it is ''the worst-case scenario''.
She told The Sun: ''If it was down to not knowing, or finding out news that isn't what you want to hear? At the end of the day I can't change that. What would you rather? "I'm not under-estimating the blow of hearing bad news that your child has been killed, because obviously we're not going to go 'OK, at least we know'. But I've spent hours thinking about that and, each time, I still come up thinking we need to know. Regardless, we need to know.''
She went on: ''But there is always the worst-case scenario. That's always been a possibility and anyone who thinks that we're blinkered doesn't know us.'' The new system will allow alerts to be issued via text, email, social media, digital billboards and to the media.
Members of the public can already sign up to receive alerts, although the new system will come into play on International Missing Children's Day on May 25.
A Child Rescue Alert was recently used in the hunt for murdered five-year-old April Jones, and the system is designed to make the most of the ''golden hours'' after a child goes missing. Charlie Hedges, from the National Crime Agency, who helped co-ordinate the appeals, said: ''The success of Child Rescue Alert is down to each and every one of us. I've already been encouraged by the wide range of organisations who have joined us in partnership to offer their support and help launch this invaluable tool.
''Now it's down to the public to sign up for the alerts so we can send the message as widely as possible when a child goes missing.''
Jo Youle, chief executive of the charity Missing People, said ''Every minute after their disappearance is crucial to bringing a child home safely. Child Rescue Alert will now mean the public and companies can help - and hopefully save these children's lives.'' http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/kate-mccann-i-return-to-praia-da-luz-resort-at-least-once-a-year-to-look-for-madeleine-30235604.html
BRietta that is proof of meditation not searching!!!
I dont thnk for a second KM can "search" literally for Madeleine so dont see the point of your post..in fact KM says in her book she searched for an hour...thats it
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 03, 2016, 01:19:22 AM
BRietta that is proof of meditation not searching!!!
I dont thnk for a second KM can "search" literally for Madeleine so dont see the point of your post..in fact KM says in her book she searched for an hour...thats it
What can she do, Mercury? Apart from going to Luz and walking in the places she last walked with her daughter?
What exactly is it that the people who criticise her for not looking for Madeleine expect her to do? She managed to get Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria on the job against all the odds ... I would say that is pretty impressive.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 03, 2016, 01:35:32 AM
What can she do, Mercury? Apart from going to Luz and walking in the places she last walked with her daughter?
What exactly is it that the people who criticise her for not looking for Madeleine expect her to do? She managed to get Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria on the job against all the odds ... I would say that is pretty impressive.
Thats why i said it was meditation and other said pilgrimage, it wasnt exactly searchng as you posted Yes it is quite impressive that she and her hubby got the pm to agree to the sy getting involved but theyd been surrounded by hgh powered people and many celebrities and the british media from the off and rich backers so maybe not that impressive
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 03, 2016, 01:43:14 AM
No one Unless its in KMs book Your catterpilla approach is not working because mnths on its not moving lol pegs
Does everyone agree that at least one person that night must have pulled the sofa out to search behind it? If so, why did that person then push the sofa all the way back against the wall? To pull the sofa out makes sense - to search behind it. But to then push it back makes no sense at all.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 03, 2016, 02:32:37 AM
What is wrong with pushung the sofa back after searchng behnd it...unless you mean n the panic they shouldnt care
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 03, 2016, 02:40:33 AM
What is wrong with pushung the sofa back after searchng behnd it...unless you mean n the panic they shouldnt care
That's exactly what I mean Merc. In the crime scene photos the sofa is all the way back against the wall. In an urgent search why waste time, after searching behind it, to push it back against the wall?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 03, 2016, 03:06:07 AM
That's exactly what I mean Merc. In the crime scene photos the sofa is all the way back against the wall. In an urgent search why waste time, after searching behind it, to push it back against the wall?
Gerry said theyd moved the sofa to the wall cos the kids were throwng cards iiirc behnd it? So who said the sofa was away from the wall, Im gettng confused , night
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Admin on June 03, 2016, 03:20:52 AM
If police didn't open all 16 wardrobe doors in the apartment it was an incomplete search Merc.
At that moment one of the GNR officers told the witness that they had already searched for the girl in the wardrobes and other places in the apartment without having taken any care as to leaving their own traces or for destroying or adulterating any traces that might be of interest to the investigation.
After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents. Reads, ratifies and signs. http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post112.html#p112
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 03, 2016, 01:16:24 PM
Gerry said theyd moved the sofa to the wall cos the kids were throwng cards iiirc behnd it? So who said the sofa was away from the wall, Im gettng confused , night
And didn't notice the trapped curtain. Must have been preoccupied at the time.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 03, 2016, 02:34:08 PM
-You have put words into my mouth - I was not berating just giving comment n the "it was so cold and dark" reason suggested for why KM did not search -I already gave one reason to Brietta how/why KM or anyone else could have looked "in the dark" there is no evidence she personally did, she never said she did n her statements to police, she never she did in years of repeated detailed interviews and documentaries worldwide, but when Madelene the book came out, she told how she sprinted up and down the road and looked in the car park -A response is not required
Please could you give a link to where Kate said it was too cold and dark to search for Madeleine.
Madeleine was searched for in the surrounding area of the apartment, then the they were with the police. Name parents who have gone out searching when the police are searching. They wouldn't have known where to start looking and running up and down streets screaming your child is missing is not going to help anyone.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 03, 2016, 02:36:33 PM
Wandered? I thought Kate said she knew right away that Maddie was abducted- jemmied shutters -open window whooosh... On that note; we do not know what time Maddie was last seen by anyone, so the time scale could have been just after parents left, which would mean a couple of hours Maddie was 'dissapeared' so searching the immediate area would have been fruitless, also, If she were abducted would the abductor hang about waiting to be caught? Hmmm not making any sense is it really.
Even if you believe your child has been abducted you would still go out and search the area wouldn't you? How were the McCann's to know when she was taken?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 03, 2016, 02:41:58 PM
Even if you believe your child has been abducted you would still go out and search the area wouldn't you? How were the McCann's to know when she was taken?
Or if even.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 03, 2016, 03:38:16 PM
Please could you give a link to where Kate said it was too cold and dark to search for Madeleine.
Madeleine was searched for in the surrounding area of the apartment, then the they were with the police. Name parents who have gone out searching when the police are searching. They wouldn't have known where to start looking and running up and down streets screaming your child is missing is not going to help anyone.
Well this gentleman did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9470638/Tia-Sharp-Father-speaks-of-horror-at-being-yards-from-her-body-during-search.html. Came all the way from Nottingham I believe.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 03, 2016, 05:18:14 PM
Well this gentleman did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9470638/Tia-Sharp-Father-speaks-of-horror-at-being-yards-from-her-body-during-search.html. Came all the way from Nottingham I believe.
How long did he search for? Also he would probably have been searching in places where Tia frequented, just as the McCann's and friends did, being a lot older than Madeleine Tia would have been to a lot more places than Madeleine would have on her holiday. Also Tia's father was searching areas he was familiar with himself, unlike the McCann's who were in a foreign country. You really can't compare the two. Imagine if Tia's father had found Tia, what a horrible memory he would have to carry around with him for the rest of his life. I don't like comparing families and saying they should have searched, April's mother didn't search and Sarah Payne's parents after searching everywhere where Sarah could have gone left it to the Police. I don't think anyone should judge parents in this way.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 03, 2016, 06:43:27 PM
I did not think nor did I say they did not search through the night ... on another thread ... on the same subject ... I have used the same quote you did.
Goncalo Amaral became co-ordinator of Madeleine's case on the night she vanished ... he was informed of the disappearance while he was at dinner.
He was in charge of the investigation from that point.
Sorry, Brietta, I thought that's what you were saying below. I think you'll find the PJ are detectives and the GNR are like our uniformed police. It was their responsibility to search, not the PJ's.
Online Brietta Moderator Hero Member ***
Posts: 8112 View Profile Personal Message (Online)
Re: So what actual searching was there? « Reply #1624 on: June 02, 2016, 12:14:29 PM » Quote Quote from: pegasus on June 02, 2016, 02:22:40 AM Soon after the alarm, the moon rose, and it was a full moon - ideal for searching.
"the moon was out later on" (source: MO Rog) If the full moon was sufficient light to search by ... why didn't the PJ organise official search teams to conduct searches?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 03, 2016, 10:47:16 PM
How long did he search for? Also he would probably have been searching in places where Tia frequented, just as the McCann's and friends did, being a lot older than Madeleine Tia would have been to a lot more places than Madeleine would have on her holiday. Also Tia's father was searching areas he was familiar with himself, unlike the McCann's who were in a foreign country. You really can't compare the two. Imagine if Tia's father had found Tia, what a horrible memory he would have to carry around with him for the rest of his life. I don't like comparing families and saying they should have searched, April's mother didn't search and Sarah Payne's parents after searching everywhere where Sarah could have gone left it to the Police. I don't think anyone should judge parents in this way.
So Tia Sharp's father searched as did Sarah Payne's parents and, I believe, April Jones's dad. To be clear I am not judging the McCanns just illustrating that your claim about parents searching is simply untrue.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 03, 2016, 10:56:01 PM
Please could you give a link to where Kate said it was too cold and dark to search for Madeleine.
Madeleine was searched for in the surrounding area of the apartment, then the they were with the police. Name parents who have gone out searching when the police are searching. They wouldn't have known where to start looking and running up and down streets screaming your child is missing is not going to help anyone.
make your mind up, she searched or she didnt, she never ever mentioned searching anywhere as i said before until 2011 and that was in the car park backing the flat and up and down the main road
Here is your link, clearly suggesting it was too dark to search and also that no one else was! The. volunteers and MW staff and police were doing exactly that all night. She later made reference in later interviews the volunteers not being organised enough so maybe you can see that criticism of people who were trying to help or suggesting no one helped didnt help her!! Like Faithlilly Im not judging what was done on the dreadful night, its not a good thing though how it was portrayed in interviews and in the book Madeleine ------ Kate McCann: I can remember our friends shouting: "You need to close the borders!" and they were shouting: "Morocco, Algiers..." you know, I can remember all this going on and "Road blocks, you need road blocks". I mean it was our friends out there kind of saying this.
Gerry McCann: I was... errm... pretty adamant Kate should stay in the apartment in case Madeleine was found so we knew where to bring her right away.
Kate McCann: I was mainly in the bedroom and then I was just praying actually, I was just ringing everyone and getting them to pray and I felt so helpless. It was really cold. You know, I knew what pyjamas she had on and I just thought 'she's going to be freezing' and it was just dark and dark, and every minute seemed like an hour and, errm... obviously we were up all night and we just waited for that, errm... first bit of light at 6 o'clock.
Gerry McCann: And then we went out searching, two of us, at daylight.
Kate McCann: It was just deserted. And we were just searching. Through the undergrowth, through bushes. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id453.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 04, 2016, 12:14:04 AM
The time the McCanns left the Payne's apartment.
1485 'Can you remember what sort of time that was roughly''
Reply 'Erm it was still very cold and, and dark, erm I think it was you know, between five and six.
I must have a blind spot about this sofa thing, can you tell me what its all about? Please?
It's all about a child hiding/having been hidden behind a sofa which was not referred to by any of the searchers as being moved & looked there. Cases where a child has fallen asleep in unusual places in a family home then reported as missing have been highlighted. Searchers/police failed to check thoroughly. The issue now being raised is why pull the sofa away from the wall & push it back again? Or was it never moved?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 04, 2016, 12:47:15 AM
Dark according to Fiona not so according to the McCanns. Searching in bushes, ditches and holes is hard to do in the dark unless you know where to look.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 04, 2016, 12:50:23 AM
It's all about a child hiding/having been hidden behind a sofa which was not referred to by any of the searchers as being moved & looked there. Cases where a child has fallen asleep in unusual places in a family home then reported as missing have been highlighted. Searchers/police failed to check thoroughly. The issue now being raised is why pull the sofa away from the wall & push it back again? Or was it never moved?
The sofa wouldn't be up tight against the wall trapping a curtain if a child was behind it. Enough of fantasy luzland!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 04, 2016, 12:58:37 AM
The sofa wouldn't be up tight against the wall trapping a curtain if a child was behind it. Enough of fantasy luzland!
It's not my thesis, Pathfinder. I'm just explaining why we are discussing the sofa position, even though it still doesn't explain the "what happened next" bit.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 04, 2016, 02:09:46 AM
(snip) ... one of the GNR officers told the witness that they had already searched for the girl in the wardrobes ... (snip)" http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post112.html#p112
If the GNR officer opened all 16 wardrobe doors, why are there 4 completely closed upper doors in one of the crime scene photos?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 04, 2016, 02:19:25 AM
The sofa wouldn't be up tight against the wall trapping a curtain if a child was behind it. Enough of fantasy luzland!
There are two possible hypotheses for the sofa during the search Hypothesis 1: No-one searched behind the sofa. Hypothesis 2: Someone searched behind the sofa - and then pushed it all the way back against the wall. It's got to be one or the other - which one is it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 04, 2016, 02:33:05 AM
There are two possible hypotheses for the sofa during the search Hypothesis 1: No-one searched behind the sofa. Hypothesis 2: Someone searched behind the sofa - and then pushed it all the way back against the wall. It's got to be one or the other - which one is it?
It's very difficult to tell because of the angle at which the CS photo was taken. The l/h curtain has been left hanging vertically rather than bunched up, suggesting sofa was away from the wall when the curtain was drawn back. However, the 2nd sofa & the coffee table seem in perfect alignment with the wall sofa so.....any advance on that?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 04, 2016, 02:51:33 AM
It's very difficult to tell because of the angle at which the CS photo was taken. The l/h curtain has been left hanging vertically rather than bunched up, suggesting sofa was away from the wall when the curtain was drawn back. However, the 2nd sofa & the coffee table seem in perfect alignment with the wall sofa so.....any advance on that?
The curtains behind the sofa - were they left closed all week, day and night? Or were they opened every morning and then closed every evening?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 04, 2016, 03:08:30 AM
The curtains behind the sofa - were they left closed all week, day and night? Or were they opened every morning and then closed every evening?
Difficult to say, depends on Kate's own habits & preferences. From a light-level aspect during the day, there was probably no need to open that particular set if the big patio curtains & the blinds behind the dining table were open. Were the curtains in the children's room ever open by day? Me - I like a light room, so open my main curtains first thing & just have the venetian reflecting the sun away as it moves across our big bay window. I know a few people who leave curtains/blinds closed all day.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on June 04, 2016, 04:11:24 AM
Difficult to say, depends on Kate's own habits & preferences. From a light-level aspect during the day, there was probably no need to open that particular set if the big patio curtains & the blinds behind the dining table were open. Were the curtains in the children's room ever open by day? Me - I like a light room, so open my main curtains first thing & just have the venetian reflecting the sun away as it moves across our big bay window. I know a few people who leave curtains/blinds closed all day.
I don't have curtains or blinds. But I don't think that Kate will much have thought about it, especially in bedrooms. But does it really matter?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 04, 2016, 06:22:54 AM
When we had shutters I used to raise them in the morning when I went in to get the children up. Then I could see to do that and to make the beds later. I used to get the children's clothes from their bedrooms too. I wonder if the chest of drawers in the children's room was used? That would have meant moving a cot away from it. It depends how dark it was with the shutters down. Ours were wooden, very heavy, and made the room very dark.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on June 04, 2016, 08:40:16 AM
So Tia Sharp's father searched as did Sarah Payne's parents and, I believe, April Jones's dad. To be clear I am not judging the McCanns just illustrating that your claim about parents searching is simply untrue.
' Sarah Payne's parents searched everywhere locally she could have gone, then they rang the police and the police took over.
April Jones dad didn't search as far as I know.
You are trying to make out that the McCann's didn't bother searching when they did, after they didn't find her anywhere in the vicinity they left it to the police to do an extended search which is what all parents do.
snippet about April's dad - A close friend and former workmate said: ‘Paul is unable to work because of his eye problems. He wanted to go out and join the search for April on the night she went missing but it would have been difficult for him.’
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 09:00:22 AM
' Sarah Payne's parents searched everywhere locally she could have gone, then they rang the police and the police took over.
April Jones dad didn't search as far as I know.
You are trying to make out that the McCann's didn't bother searching when they did, after they didn't find her anywhere in the vicinity they left it to the police to do an extended search which is what all parents do.
They 'searched' the following morning briefly.
Meanwhile hundreds of other people had searched throughout the night, and many continued to do so for weeks afterwards.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 04, 2016, 09:34:24 AM
Meanwhile hundreds of other people had searched throughout the night, and many continued to do so for weeks afterwards.
Many searched for Sarah Payne through the night too Stephen, and weeks afterwards, the McCann's were with the police most of the night and then they searched early morning.
What is it with you, why pick out the McCann's when other parents have done the same?
What's with the inverted commas around searched? They DID search.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 09:45:55 AM
Many searched for Sarah Payne through the night too Stephen, and weeks afterwards, the McCann's were with the police most of the night and then they searched early morning.
What is it with you, why pick out the McCann's when other parents have done the same?
What's with the inverted commas around searched? They DID search.
That is a matter of opinion Lace, as to whether they actually searched.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 04, 2016, 09:56:43 AM
' Sarah Payne's parents searched everywhere locally she could have gone, then they rang the police and the police took over.
April Jones dad didn't search as far as I know.
You are trying to make out that the McCann's didn't bother searching when they did, after they didn't find her anywhere in the vicinity they left it to the police to do an extended search which is what all parents do.
snippet about April's dad - A close friend and former workmate said: ‘Paul is unable to work because of his eye problems. He wanted to go out and join the search for April on the night she went missing but it would have been difficult for him.’
So April's dad 'wanted' to search but had a very good reason why he couldn't . Can we say the same for Gerry ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 10:19:25 AM
' Sarah Payne's parents searched everywhere locally she could have gone, then they rang the police and the police took over.
April Jones dad didn't search as far as I know.
You are trying to make out that the McCann's didn't bother searching when they did, after they didn't find her anywhere in the vicinity they left it to the police to do an extended search which is what all parents do.
snippet about April's dad - A close friend and former workmate said: ‘Paul is unable to work because of his eye problems. He wanted to go out and join the search for April on the night she went missing but it would have been difficult for him.’
Also:- Sandy Davidson age 3 disappeared from the back garden of his grandparents home. His mother Margaret told Lorraine Kelly in a TV doc. that she couldn't physically take part in the search for her son because she was too afraid of what she might find.
I've never read a word of criticism of that mother for deciding not to search for her own child at all. Neither have I read any of April's parents for not searching. But then - their name isn't McCann is it. Says it all really.
Just another stick to beat the McCanns with IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 10:25:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/QfFfJ4p.jpg?2)
BTW, This a fact, not goading.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 04, 2016, 10:36:30 AM
Also:- Sandy Davidson age 3 disappeared from the back garden of his grandparents home. His mother Margaret told Lorraine Kelly in a TV doc. that she couldn't physically take part in the search for her son because she was too afraid of what she might find.
I've never read a word of criticism of that mother for deciding not to search for her own child at all. Neither have I read any of April's parents for not searching. But then - their name isn't McCann is it. Says it all really.
Just another stick to beat the McCanns with IMO.
When children disappear in the UK the police respond in a certain way. Searches are begun using police and volunteers. I have no doubt that at least one FLO is assigned to stay with the family in case anything is found. Basically, it's all in hand and the parents are organised, told what to do and supported.
In the McCann case their was no FLO. There was no information about what the police were doing. The parents thought no searches were taking place that night. The situation they were in was completely different.
In that case I would have expected the parents to search once the PJ left because they thought no-one else was.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 04, 2016, 10:56:10 AM
When children disappear in the UK the police respond in a certain way. Searches are begun using police and volunteers. I have no doubt that at least one FLO is assigned to stay with the family in case anything is found. Basically, it's all in hand and the parents are organised, told what to do and supported.
In the McCann case their was no FLO. There was no information about what the police were doing. The parents thought no searches were taking place that night. The situation they were in was completely different.
In that case I would have expected the parents to search once the PJ left because they thought no-one else was.
IIRC FL officers arrived on the 5th May?
Either one or both of the McCanns searched before the police arrived, after the police left and then again as soon as dawn broke - when they were seen by a GNR officer.
April Jones parents didn't search themselves. -No criticism by sceptics Sandy Davidsons mother didn't search herself - No criticism by sceptics The McCanns did search themselves. - 9 years of unrelenting criticism by sceptics.
Bizarre logic IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
Either one or both of the McCanns searched before the police arrived, after the police left and then again as soon as dawn broke - when they were seen by a GNR officer.
April Jones parents didn't search themselves. -No criticism by sceptics Sandy Davidsons mother didn't search herself - No criticism by sceptics The McCanns did search themselves. - 9 years of unrelenting criticism by sceptics.
Bizarre logic IMO.
How could the police search before they arrived , after being notified of Madeleine's disappearance ?
How long did the police search for that night ?
For how many days , weeks and months did the police and others continues to search ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 04, 2016, 11:12:43 AM
How could the police search before they arrived , after being notified of Madeleine's disappearance ?
How long did the police search for that night ?
For how many days , weeks and months did the police and others continues to search ?
You appear to have missed the point Stephen. My post was not about searching carried out by the police. It referred to the seaching (or lack of it) by the parents of missing chidren on discovering that their child had disappeared.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 04, 2016, 11:14:53 AM
Either one or both of the McCanns searched before the police arrived, after the police left and then again as soon as dawn broke - when they were seen by a GNR officer.
April Jones parents didn't search themselves. -No criticism by sceptics Sandy Davidsons mother didn't search herself - No criticism by sceptics The McCanns did search themselves. - 9 years of unrelenting criticism by sceptics.
Bizarre logic IMO.
Not to mention being despicably ridiculed by the former chief investigator into the investigation into Madeleine's case ...
Gerry McCann & his wife's cousin Michael Wright, May 9, 2007, credits Vasco Célio/AFP/Getty Images
GA: There are photos, taken in the rocks down bellow in the water, were we can see searching, certainly he was not searching for his live daughter…
HC: Are you referring to Maddie’s father?
GA: To Gerald McCann. Maddie’s father.
HC: He was walking around here, in the rocks bellow?
GA: Yes, there are pictures of that.
HC: But in that case, he would have to have the firm belief that the girl was dead.
GA: I do not believe that he was looking for crabs nor searching for a live daughter. According to Moita Flores, it would be important to return to this area, I believe so, even because there are people who continue to say today that the body might be around here, and continue to give information about places. It should be looked, the police should make searches, they should reopen the process and resume the investigations. There is much to be done still.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 11:21:11 AM
So, strolling around a beach.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 11:26:25 AM
You appear to have missed the point Stephen. My post was not about searching carried out by the police. It referred to the seaching (or lack of it) by the parents of missing chidren on discovering that their child had disappeared.
I have not missed your point Benice.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on June 04, 2016, 11:27:35 AM
Mens sana in corpore sano definition, a sound mind in a sound body
Madeleine's siblings are entitled to as normal a life as possible despite her disappearance. That requires parents in as good a state of health and well being as possible to be able to provide it for them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 11:39:58 AM
Mens sana in corpore sano definition, a sound mind in a sound body
Madeleine's siblings are entitled to as normal a life as possible despite her disappearance. That requires parents in as good a state of health and well being as possible to be able to provide it for them.
Is that reply incorporating a well known Latin phrase supposed to impress me ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 04, 2016, 12:07:07 PM
So April's dad 'wanted' to search but had a very good reason why he couldn't . Can we say the same for Gerry ?
Gerry did search, April's dad didn't go out at all, not that I am saying anything against April's dad, all parents are different, April's mum was afraid of what she might find, you must remember that these are parents who are deeply shocked and traumatised at finding their child missing, some can't function at all. The McCann's were with the police most of the night.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 04, 2016, 12:08:24 PM
Gerry did search, April's dad didn't go out at all, not that I am saying anything against April's dad, all parents are different, April's mum was afraid of what she might find, you must remember that these are parents who are deeply shocked and traumatised at finding their child missing, some can't function at all. The McCann's were with the police most of the night.
But we know the McCanns did 'function' up to a point. Gerry took part in the construction of the timeline written on Madeleine's sticker book, they both were not only functioning enough to be able to call and text friends and family but also to organise the calls on their mobile phones, deleting the ones they felt served no purpose. Further if they felt unable to search that night, at a time you would imagine when it would have been most useful, what had changed by the morning when they did search for a short time ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 04, 2016, 02:22:53 PM
But we know the McCanns did 'function' up to a point. Gerry took part in the construction of the timeline written on Madeleine's sticker book, they both were not only functioning enough to be able to call and text friends and family but also to organise the calls on their mobile phones, deleting the ones they felt served no purpose. Further if they felt unable to search that night, at a time you would imagine when it would have been most useful, what had changed by the morning when they did search for a short time ?
The McCann's were waiting for the police and then cooperating with the police, then they lay down for a short time and then went searching.
They did search that night, everywhere they had been on that holiday, Madeleine wasn't found.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 04, 2016, 02:26:47 PM
You or the mccanns do not have the moral high ground.
What are you talking about now, moral high ground? I pointed out that judging by what you post you have no sympathy what so ever with parents who have lost a child, you are so convinced that the McCann's are guilty that you won't even contemplate the fact that they did search for their daughter. You think they should have been out there searching all week just as the volunteers were and the police, when that is ridiculous and I don't know any other parent of a child that has gone missing who have done that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 04, 2016, 02:31:45 PM
Gerry McCann & his wife's cousin Michael Wright, May 9, 2007, credits Vasco Célio/AFP/Getty Images
GA: There are photos, taken in the rocks down bellow in the water, were we can see searching, certainly he was not searching for his live daughter…
HC: Are you referring to Maddie’s father?
GA: To Gerald McCann. Maddie’s father.
HC: He was walking around here, in the rocks bellow?
GA: Yes, there are pictures of that.
HC: But in that case, he would have to have the firm belief that the girl was dead.
GA: I do not believe that he was looking for crabs nor searching for a live daughter. According to Moita Flores, it would be important to return to this area, I believe so, even because there are people who continue to say today that the body might be around here, and continue to give information about places. It should be looked, the police should make searches, they should reopen the process and resume the investigations. There is much to be done still.
I remember those comments from Amaral, when he knew that they said it was unlikely that Madeleine could have been disposed of in the sea as it was low tide and they would have had to walk out to the sea to do that and even then her body would have been washed ashore. Also it was proven that they couldn't have thrown Madeleine's body from a cliff either as it was said it would have been impossible for the body to have reached the sea they wouldn't have had the strength needed to do it. Amaral just makes these comments without any thought of how they would have been accomplished, and makes a casual walk on the beach by Gerry probably to have some quiet time away from everything look suspicious.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 02:55:23 PM
What are you talking about now, moral high ground? I pointed out that judging by what you post you have no sympathy what so ever with parents who have lost a child, you are so convinced that the McCann's are guilty that you won't even contemplate the fact that they did search for their daughter. You think they should have been out there searching all week just as the volunteers were and the police, when that is ridiculous and I don't know any other parent of a child that has gone missing who have done that.
How do you know who I have sympathy for, or otherwise ?
I have sympathy for Madeleine, not the mccanns.
They brought this on themselves.
and they have played the poor me act for far too long., and that doesn't wash anymore.
If it had been me, I would have been out searching and NOT MAKING EXCUSES for not doing so.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 04, 2016, 03:01:33 PM
How do you know who I have sympathy for, or otherwise ?
I have sympathy for Madeleine, not the mccanns.
They brought this on themselves.
and they have played the poor me act for far too long., and that doesn't wash anymore.
If it had been me, I would have been out searching and NOT MAKING EXCUSES for not doing so.
'Poor me act' that is what you call parents grieving for their lost child? I bet you wouldn't say that to any of the parents of children who are missing would you?
'They brought it on themselves' yes, something people really jump to say to these parents, April Jones mother was on the verge of suicide because of spiteful taunts like that.
'If it had been me, I would have been out .........' yeah yeah of course you would, people really think they know what they would do if something like this happened to them, but in reality they don't. It made much better sense for the McCann's to be there for the police when they arrived instead of tearing around wildly in a foreign country. It is what parents are advised to do.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 04, 2016, 03:03:57 PM
A press photo shoot not a search. They really look devastated. Beach is deserted - imagine what it's like at night &%+((£
What are you talking about now, moral high ground? I pointed out that judging by what you post you have no sympathy what so ever with parents who have lost a child, you are so convinced that the McCann's are guilty that you won't even contemplate the fact that they did search for their daughter. You think they should have been out there searching all week just as the volunteers were and the police, when that is ridiculous and I don't know any other parent of a child that has gone missing who have done that.
What did they do all week?
Friday;
PJ interviews all day.
Saturday;
Early meeting with trauma counsellor. Met UK FLO's. Gerry went to Tapas are at lunchtime. Met with Alex Woolfall. Greeted 5 more relatives. Another media statement at sunset. Met Father Pacheco in the evening.
Sunday;
Everyone [family and friends] went to Mass. 2 more friends arrive. Told excess relatives to go home, leaving only Trishia, Sandy, Michael and Nicky.
Monday;
Meeting with Alex Woolfall and Andy Bowes. Family and friends joined the search around Luz, apart from their parents and Nora who walked down to the beach cafe. No-one to collect the twins at lunchtime, Kate and Gerry had to leave a meeting to do it. Got people back from search to care for twins. BBC appeal recorded by Kate. Father 'Ze' and 20 locals came at teatime to pray. Lost it with the FLO's later because they had no interpreter.
Tuesday;
Family and friends left. Kate went to beach with Fiona. Cherie Blair phoned her. Gerry had his 'vision' during prayer at the church [they had the keys by now].
Wednesday;
Galvanised by his 'vision' Gerry spends the day phoning people with a 'call to arms'. Kate went to church.
The British Ambassador and Consul visited most days, as did the FLO's.
[Mostly taken from Kate's book.]
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 04, 2016, 04:06:51 PM
Does anyone think the McCanns didn't search because they knew what had happened to Maddie and knew she could not be found
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 04, 2016, 04:07:51 PM
Early meeting with trauma counsellor. Met UK FLO's. Gerry went to Tapas are at lunchtime. Met with Alex Woolfall. Greeted 5 more relatives. Another media statement at sunset. Met Father Pacheco in the evening.
Sunday;
Everyone [family and friends] went to Mass. 2 more friends arrive. Told excess relatives to go home, leaving only Trishia, Sandy, Michael and Nicky.
Monday;
Meeting with Alex Woolfall and Andy Bowes. Family and friends joined the search around Luz, apart from their parents and Nora who walked down to the beach cafe. No-one to collect the twins at lunchtime, Kate and Gerry had to leave a meeting to do it. Got people back from search to care for twins. BBC appeal recorded by Kate. Father 'Ze' and 20 locals came at teatime to pray. Lost it with the FLO's later because they had no interpreter.
Tuesday;
Family and friends left. Kate went to beach with Fiona. Cherie Blair phoned her. Gerry had his 'vision' during prayer at the church [they had the keys by now].
Wednesday;
Galvanised by his 'vision' Gerry spends the day phoning people with a 'call to arms'. Kate went to church.
The British Ambassador and Consul visited most days, as did the FLO's.
[Mostly taken from Kate's book.]
From Jez Wilkin's statement :
'I last saw JERRY and KATE on SATURDAY 5th MAY 2007 at about 4 pm - 5 pm. We were sitting by the pool. I walked over to JERRY and wanted to let him know I was thinking about him. I shook his hand. He was quiet but wasn't crying. I thought it was brave of him and his wife to go to the pool. '
So a spot of sunbathing instead of searching on the Saturday following Madeleine's disappearance and something I've always found odd, no last minute questions to Jez to see if he's remembered anything.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 04, 2016, 04:29:04 PM
'I last saw JERRY and KATE on SATURDAY 5th MAY 2007 at about 4 pm - 5 pm. We were sitting by the pool. I walked over to JERRY and wanted to let him know I was thinking about him. I shook his hand. He was quiet but wasn't crying. I thought it was brave of him and his wife to go to the pool. '
So a spot of sunbathing instead of searching on the Saturday following Madeleine's disappearance and something I've always found odd, no last minute questions to Jez to see if he's remembered anything.
strange isn't it....I don't find it all odd they were sitting around the pool
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 04, 2016, 05:11:55 PM
'I last saw JERRY and KATE on SATURDAY 5th MAY 2007 at about 4 pm - 5 pm. We were sitting by the pool. I walked over to JERRY and wanted to let him know I was thinking about him. I shook his hand. He was quiet but wasn't crying. I thought it was brave of him and his wife to go to the pool. '
So a spot of sunbathing instead of searching on the Saturday following Madeleine's disappearance and something I've always found odd, no last minute questions to Jez to see if he's remembered anything.
You (who are not involved in any way) find this odd, but Jez (who was there and wtnessed events himself) thought it brave. That says it all to me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 04, 2016, 05:21:38 PM
Note Jez says "we were sitting by the pool" (not Kate and Gery) but Faithlilly has chosen to interpret this as "Kate and Gerry were sunbathing by the pool". It's a perfect example of a biased mind twisting words to suit the agenda.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 04, 2016, 06:11:33 PM
Note Jez says "we were sitting by the pool" (not Kate and Gery) but Faithlilly has chosen to interpret this as "Kate and Gerry were sunbathing by the pool". It's a perfect example of a biased mind twisting words to suit the agenda.
Perhaps it's not a good idea to speed read Alfie.
'. I thought it was brave of him and his wife to go to the pool. '
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 04, 2016, 06:14:03 PM
'. I thought it was brave of him and his wife to go to the pool. '
I did read it in full and very carefully before I commented. Does "go to the pool" mean they were sat there sunbathing? Why does Jez call it brave rather than odd for them to have been at the pool, in your opinion?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 04, 2016, 06:24:15 PM
Not sure Jez commented on not being asked anything. He thought the McCanns being by the pool brave I believe.
By the way you missed out the next sentence from Jez's statement:
"I said 'Hello' to KATE. I didn't know what to say in that situation. She looked really upset"
Sunbathing is a relaxing activity - it doesn't sound to me very much like they were sunbathing so why did you choose to describe them as engaging in a spot of sunbathing?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 04, 2016, 06:29:43 PM
Another perspective on the afternoon Faithlilly has described as the McCanns indulging in a spot of sunbathing from Jez's partner:
"We had not seen the McCanns since Thursday, when suddenly they appeared by the pool. The surreal limbo of the past two days suddenly snapped back into painful, awful realtime. It was a shock: the physical transformation of these two human beings was sickening - I felt it as a physical blow. Kate's back and shoulders, her hands, her mouth had reshaped themselves in to the angular manifestation of a silent scream. I thought I might cry and turned so that she wouldn't see. Gerry was upright, his lips now drawn into a thin, impenetrable line. Some people, including Jes, tried to offer comfort. Some gave them hugs. Some stared at their feet, words eluding them. We all wondered what to do. That was the last time we saw Gerry and Kate".
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 04, 2016, 06:31:34 PM
posters should realise that the mccanns knew they were going to be in the limelight and it was important to have a good tan
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 04, 2016, 06:35:07 PM
posters should realise that the mccanns knew they were going to be in the limelight and it was important to have a good tan
LOL.
But seriously, we should be grateful to Faithlilly for providing us with a great example of biased spinning of the facts to suit the McCann-bashing agenda.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 04, 2016, 06:40:09 PM
Another perspective on the afternoon Faithlilly has described as the McCanns indulging in a spot of sunbathing from Jez's partner:
"We had not seen the McCanns since Thursday, when suddenly they appeared by the pool. The surreal limbo of the past two days suddenly snapped back into painful, awful realtime. It was a shock: the physical transformation of these two human beings was sickening - I felt it as a physical blow. Kate's back and shoulders, her hands, her mouth had reshaped themselves in to the angular manifestation of a silent scream. I thought I might cry and turned so that she wouldn't see. Gerry was upright, his lips now drawn into a thin, impenetrable line. Some people, including Jes, tried to offer comfort. Some gave them hugs. Some stared at their feet, words eluding them. We all wondered what to do. That was the last time we saw Gerry and Kate".
They sounds like words from a novel.
Hardly day to day conversational talk, too descriptive.
It sounds orchestrated.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 04, 2016, 06:53:42 PM
I have recently heard that one of the group who flew out was Kate's personal hairdresser....PAID FOR BY THE FUND..
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 04, 2016, 07:00:32 PM
I did read it in full and very carefully before I commented. Does "go to the pool" mean they were sat there sunbathing? Why does Jez call it brave rather than odd for them to have been at the pool, in your opinion?
I have no idea. Perhaps he said it ironically ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 05, 2016, 12:01:07 AM
By the way you missed out the next sentence from Jez's statement:
"I said 'Hello' to KATE. I didn't know what to say in that situation. She looked really upset"
Sunbathing is a relaxing activity - it doesn't sound to me very much like they were sunbathing so why did you choose to describe them as engaging in a spot of sunbathing?
So back on topic. Whether sunbathing or simply sitting by the pool THEY WERE NOT SEARCHING.
BTW Alfie why do you think Gerry didn't make one last effort to find out if Jez had remembered anything ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on June 05, 2016, 12:06:03 AM
So back on topic. Whether sunbathing or simply sitting by the pool THEY WERE NOT SEARCHING.
BTW Alfie why do you think Gerry didn't make one last effort to find out if Jez had remembered anything ?
Especially since they had realised at lunchtime;
At lunchtime, over by the Tapas area, Gerry saw a crowd of departing guests waiting with their suitcases for the coach to take them to the airport. Among them was a guy with whom he had played tennis several times that week, accompanied by his wife and child. They still had another week of their holiday to go but had decided to return home because, as he explained to Gerry, it was just ‘too painful’ for them to stay any longer. Gerry felt sick. It was at this moment that it dawned on him just how many people would be leaving the resort that day without being interviewed. It would run into the hundreds. How much potentially valuable information was going to be lost for ever as a result? Madeleine Kate McCann
I wonder why everything is so complex? As far as I know the tennis courts were dominated by Mark Warner guests, just as the Tapas restaurant was. I can't find a Mark Warner guest who had booked for 14 nights, they all booked 7 nights. Have the Thomas Cook guests been left out of the files, but were there anyway, playing tennis and eating at the Tapas? The tennis coaches were Mark Warner employees, but were the courts open to all? Was the Tapas restaurant exclusively Mark Warner? They had 15-20 covers for dinner each night, were there covers reserved for Thomas Cook also?
However, Gerry knew by now of Jane Tanner's sighting so it is strange that, having had the above realisation at lunchtime, he neglected to ask JW later if he'd seen anything significant.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 05, 2016, 08:58:22 AM
I will never get my head round this, their three-year-old daughter disappears and they still find time for tennis and a jog?
Jesus Christ, if my kid disappeared I would be down the police HQ every single day demanding action!
Do they exist in a parallel universe or what?
It is called releasing tension, just as someone would go for a walk, clean the house, they were waiting for news, it must have been horrendous just waiting and not knowing what was happening, sitting and just thinking is not good.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 09:20:32 AM
So back on topic. Whether sunbathing or simply sitting by the pool THEY WERE NOT SEARCHING.
BTW Alfie why do you think Gerry didn't make one last effort to find out if Jez had remembered anything ?
They were neither sunbathing, nor sitting by the pool. You were not there so I prefer to rely on the testimony of those who were. I have no idea what words passed between the two men in the time that elapsed between Madeleine disappearing and them saying goodbye at the pool and neither do you. Neither man has made any attempt to record for public posterity every word they spoke to each other, and why should they have?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 09:26:13 AM
It is called releasing tension, just as someone would go for a walk, clean the house, they were waiting for news, it must have been horrendous just waiting and not knowing what was happening, sitting and just thinking is not good.
Never have the parents of a missing child been subject to so much scrutiny and pejorative criticism almost from the moment of their loss continuing till nine years down the line.
One wonders the source and the nature of the flawed information which led to justification of this ... the 'searching' issue which seems unique to Madeleine's parents being merely one example. Weird and very sad.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 09:34:02 AM
It is called releasing tension, just as someone would go for a walk, clean the house, they were waiting for news, it must have been horrendous just waiting and not knowing what was happening, sitting and just thinking is not good.
They were also following advice from the professionals counsellors who were sent out there to help them, people who incidentally found that the McCanns behaviour was completely in keeping with those who find themselves in such a situation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 09:39:32 AM
At lunchtime, over by the Tapas area, Gerry saw a crowd of departing guests waiting with their suitcases for the coach to take them to the airport. Among them was a guy with whom he had played tennis several times that week, accompanied by his wife and child. They still had another week of their holiday to go but had decided to return home because, as he explained to Gerry, it was just ‘too painful’ for them to stay any longer. Gerry felt sick. It was at this moment that it dawned on him just how many people would be leaving the resort that day without being interviewed. It would run into the hundreds. How much potentially valuable information was going to be lost for ever as a result? Madeleine Kate McCann
I wonder why everything is so complex? As far as I know the tennis courts were dominated by Mark Warner guests, just as the Tapas restaurant was. I can't find a Mark Warner guest who had booked for 14 nights, they all booked 7 nights. Have the Thomas Cook guests been left out of the files, but were there anyway, playing tennis and eating at the Tapas? The tennis coaches were Mark Warner employees, but were the courts open to all? Was the Tapas restaurant exclusively Mark Warner? They had 15-20 covers for dinner each night, were there covers reserved for Thomas Cook also?
However, Gerry knew by now of Jane Tanner's sighting so it is strange that, having had the above realisation at lunchtime, he neglected to ask JW later if he'd seen anything significant.
You are making something out of nothing, just as Faithlilly chose to make the poolside encounter into the McCanns indulging in a spot of sunbathing. It's just you putting your biased viewpoint onto every little detail.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 05, 2016, 10:30:22 AM
I don't think so. I see you have avoided referencing Bridget's article excerpt.
What would you like me to say ? It's a piece of fluff by a journalist who was probably paid a pretty penny for it. Now if you had cited Bridget's official statement we may have something to discuss.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 05, 2016, 11:03:16 AM
You are making something out of nothing, just as Faithlilly chose to make the poolside encounter into the McCanns indulging in a spot of sunbathing. It's just you putting your biased viewpoint onto every little detail.
Kate's book was described as the truth, so her writings should fit the facts. The only holidaymaker who left early was the one who went to Switzerland on 4th, as far as I know. If Gerry was alert enough to notice all the lost info leaving at lunchtime it is strange that the same thought didn't occur to him a few hours later when he saw JW.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 05, 2016, 11:24:02 AM
Words of wisdom from parents who have experienced a child go missing, have had to delete some of it as it exceeded the maximum length for a post.
Personal and Family Considerations Chapter 7
I had no rational thoughts, they were all irrational.
-- Heather Cox
Hanging on to my sanity for a minute at a time often took all of my energy. I could not begin to look several days down the road.
-- Colleen Nick
Not knowing where your child is or how he or she is being treated is one of the hardest things you will have to face. One minute you will feel a surge of hope, the next, a depth of despair that will threaten your very sanity. Life will become an emotional roller coaster that won't really stop until you can hold your child in your arms again.
Regaining Your Emotional and Physical Strength
Force yourself to eat and sleep. Your body needs food and sleep in order to endure this ordeal. Although eating and sleeping may seem incredibly difficult, you must try. If eating regular meals feels like too much of a drain or if it brings back painful memories of your child, change your meal times and locations. If you cannot sleep at night because you are nervous, tense, or afraid of nightmares, find a place to relax and nap during the day. Just make sure you are doing everything you can to take care of yourself.
Find time for physical exercise. Any type of physical activity, even walking the dog, can help to ease the stress on your body and clear your head. Physical exercise also can help you relax at night so your body gets the sleep it needs.
Create space for yourself. Find a place of refuge -- away from the pressure of the search and the investigation -- where you can be alone with your thoughts and regroup. Even a few quiet minutes can significantly relieve stress. It may help to walk in the park, visit your church or synagogue, or talk to a neighbor. Try to take as much time as you need and can spare. Remember that you are the best judge of what will help you to handle the life crisis and that it is okay -- even necessary -- to take a break from the stress for dinner and a walk.
Find ways to release your emotions. Your emotions will be running wild and will seem out of control. In these circumstances fear, anger, and grief can take over your entire existence. Therefore, you need to find a way to release your emotions because if you cannot express them, you may find yourself taking it out on others. Talk with someone -- a friend, a relative, or a professional therapist -- who will just listen. Also, try to stay busy. You can cook, write letters that express your feelings without mailing them, or record your thoughts and feelings in a journal.
Put your anger and grief to work for you. Come up with ideas for the search. For example, you can make a list of all of your child's friends, neighbors, and acquaintances -- anyone who might hold a clue as to the whereabouts of your child. You can make a list of places your child frequented or even occasionally visited -- anywhere law enforcement could look for your child. Finally, you can think of ways to release your emotions in a productive manner.
Don't blame yourself. Looking back, you may feel that there was something you could have done to have prevented your child's disappearance. You can literally drive yourself crazy asking, What if . . . ? But the fact is, if you did not arrange for the disappearance, you should not hold yourself responsible for not knowing or doing something that may seem obvious in hindsight. And remember, at least one child has been abducted out of the safety of her own bedroom while her parents slept in the room next door.
Don't shoulder the blame of others. Recognize that some people may blame you for the disappearance because of their own fears for their children. They may imply that if you had watched your child more closely, he or she would not have disappeared. Blaming you may make them feel somewhat safer in the world because they hold you -- and your supposed mistake -- responsible for your child's abduction, rather than the abductor. Also, sometimes one spouse blames the other for the disappearance of the child. This is hardly ever fair and can critically harm the well-being of the entire family. Try to stay out of the blame game by being kind to yourself and to one another. Understand that sometimes anger and blame are irrational and misplaced. Keep the lines of communication open among family members. If necessary, seek professional counseling or other outside assistance to help you handle the situation.
Stay united in your fight to find your child. Don't allow the stress of the investigation to drive a wedge into your family life. When emotions run wild, be careful that you do not lash out at or cast blame on others. Instead, give each other lots of warm hugs to counteract the stress inherent in the situation. Remember that everyone deals with crises and grief differently, so don't judge others because they do not respond to the disappearance in the same way you do.
Allow the opinions of other people to be their business, not yours. Some people need to have an opinion as to how well you are handling the situation and whether you should be acting differently. Keep in mind that such judgments are merely the opinions of others and that at any given moment, you are doing the best you possibly can.
Seek professional counseling for yourself and your family. Professional counseling can be extremely helpful for parents and families to assist them in coping with their feelings of fear, depression, grief, isolation, anger, and despair. You may think that you and your family can or should get through the crisis alone, but you don't have to. Encourage family members to take care of themselves by seeking support and counseling. If you need assistance finding or paying for counseling, contact your local mental health agency or provider or ask another family member or friend to do this for you. If you are uncomfortable with professional counseling, consider another form of support -- from your clergy, a physician, a lay counselor, or a friend.
Seek peace and solace for yourself. Many parents find comfort in their faith and use it as a powerful incentive to survive this nightmare. The loneliness of grief diminishes somewhat for people who believe that they are not alone. Turning to -- or returning to -- religion can give parents the support and encouragement they need at this critical juncture in their lives.
Mentally Preparing for the Long Term
As heartless as it may seem, your life and the lives of your children must go on. Although moving on with your life may seem impossible, you must do it -- for the good of yourself and your family. You will, of course, find that there is no such thing as "normal" life as you once knew it. Everything has changed, and has changed forever. And whatever the outcome, you will be dealing with this nightmare in some way for the rest of your life.
Going back to work is not abandonment of your child. If you need to return to work, you may feel extremely guilty. Try to remember that your child must have a home to return to and that you are working to provide that home for your child. When you return to work, find a quiet place where you can go to be alone or to cry. Your grief is likely to come unannounced, and you will need a place where you can express it. If your job requires a lot of concentration, which you are not able to give, look for another position that does not place as many demands on you. The American Hospice Foundation publication Grief at Work, listed in the Recommended Readings section of this Guide, has additional advice.
Focus on your emotional well-being. To keep yourself on a more even keel, continue individual and family counseling, and try to stay busy. You can immerse yourself in activities with your other children or volunteer to help in school, church, or the community. Don't isolate yourself. Many parent survivors try to help other parents by working through missing children's organizations or by starting a group of their own. The books and articles listed in the Recommended Readings section of this Guide have proven to be particularly helpful.
It's okay to laugh. A laugh can be as cleansing as a good cry. Laughter not only helps to release tension and emotion, it helps to restore normalcy to life.
Never stop looking. You will probably want to dedicate part of each day to your missing child. Use these hours to keep the search going and to keep the hope alive. You can set aside time to make phone calls, write letters, contact law enforcement, or do whatever you think will help in the search for your missing child.
Helping Your Children To Regain Their Physical and Emotional Strength
Your other children need your physical and emotional support now more than ever, but you may not be able to satisfy their needs. You may have barely enough energy to keep yourself going. You may feel that you are abandoning your lost child if you are not doing something every moment to find him or her. These are normal feelings. Consider getting additional support for your other children during this time of crisis. Here are some ideas.
Find a safety zone for your children. Find a safe place away from your home where your other children can be shielded from both the search effort and the media. This is especially important for young children, who still need to play and be themselves. Trusted friends and relatives can provide a reasonably normal, nurturing life for your children in a relatively stress-free environment, so this is a good time to let members of the extended family and friends assume a large part of the responsibility for their care. Just remember to maintain contact with your children -- both over the phone and with regular visits -- and to reassure them frequently how much you love them.
Consider letting your other children participate in the search. If it seems appropriate, you can allow your older children to actively participate in the search effort. However, it is important to consider their age, desire, and level of maturity and to respect their right to say no. If your children are young, you will need to decide how much information you want revealed and whether it is appropriate for them to participate in the search effort. In some cases, younger children have distributed balloons and fliers. If you decide to let your children participate, keep a gauge on how well they are handling the situation and be prepared to make changes, if necessary. Remember that there are both emotional and security issues to consider when your children participate in the search effort. Ask your law enforcement contact for advice.
Think twice about letting the media interview siblings. Interviews with the media can be extremely traumatic to the brothers and sisters of a missing child. Children are seldom prepared for the extremely personal or probing questions asked by insensitive or pushy media personnel. Remember that the media can and will be persistent, particularly given the sudden ascension of your family to "celebrity" status. Make sure that you supervise interviews and continue to set boundaries that are in your children's best interests.
Bring the needs of your other children into balance with those of your missing child. Focus on the needs of the children who are still at home. Remember that they, too, are trying to cope with their loss. Talk with your children about their feelings of fear, anger, hurt, and loss. Make them feel as important to you as your missing child. Encourage them to return to the interests and activities they enjoyed before the disappearance -- by playing with friends, participating in sports, or playing music.
Establish different routines to help your family cope. Family meetings can be an effective way to deal with the changes wrought by the disappearance. They offer family members a safe, nonjudgmental environment in which to voice feelings of fear, anger, and frustration. They also give family members an opportunity to keep one another informed about the ongoing investigation and involved in family decisionmaking.
Celebrate birthdays, holidays, and other special events. Young children will want to celebrate birthdays and holidays even when a brother or sister is missing. Plan ahead so you are not caught offguard by the intense emotional roller coaster that can accompany such events. You can, for example, try changing family holiday traditions and beginning new ones. Instead of throwing a big birthday party, you can eat cake and ice cream for breakfast and then open presents. If you have older children, instead of the traditional Christmas or Hanukkah celebration, you can go on a trip. Remember that your children need to have fun and that they want you to celebrate, even if your heart is not ready for it. Recognize, however, that you have personal limitations as to what you will be able to handle and that those limitations need to be respected. The secret is to plan ahead.
Allow all members of the family to talk about your missing child, about their emotional reactions to the situation, and about their loss. Don't let the absence of your child and your deep sense of loss become a taboo subject. Instead, let your children know that they can freely express their thoughts and feelings to you and that they will be met with love and acceptance. Let your children know that it is okay for everyone in the family -- including mom and dad -- to cry and that you can help each other by holding hands, giving each other a big hug or kiss, or getting each other a glass of water. Remember that even if you do not communicate with your children about your missing child, other children in the neighborhood will.
Don't be surprised if your other children's behavior drastically changes. Everyone in the family has suffered a tremendous shock. In these circumstances, bedwetting, stomach aches, depression, anger, sullenness, quietness, and truancy are common reactions. But by the same token, don't be alarmed if your child's behavior changes very little or not at all. Children, just as adults, react differently to the disappearance of a child.
Help your other children return to some type of normalcy by returning to school. Your children need the normalcy that the daily routine of school provides. But before your children go back to school, talk with them about what they want others to know. Make sure they understand that most people in your community already know what has happened. Listen to your child's thoughts and feelings about returning to school. Then, talk to your child's teachers and counselors to help them prepare for the return of your child.
Ask the school to bring counselors into the classroom both after the disappearance and when your child returns to school. Teachers and classmates of a missing child will also experience fear and grief. When your other children return to school, they and their friends -- and the friends of your missing child -- are bound to feel scared. Ask your law enforcement contact if an officer can go to the school to teach the children both how to recognize dangerous situations and how to get away. Ask teachers and counselors for their help in giving all of the children the support they need to deal with this crisis. The American Hospice Foundation publication Grief at School, listed in the Recommended Readings section of this Guide, has additional advice.
Ask other children who have faced similar difficulties to provide one-on-one support to your children. A number of sources can put you in touch with other families that have experienced the trauma of a missing child. Try calling your local law enforcement agency, your State missing children's clearinghouse, NCMEC, or other missing children's organizations. Your children may be more comfortable talking with a peer who has gone through a similar ordeal.
Seek professional counseling for your children. Your children are suffering just as intensely as you are and may need help dealing with feelings of fear, anger, and grief. Don't feel guilty that you cannot be their total support at this point in your life. Instead, look to others to help your children cope with the powerful emotions that follow the disappearance of a brother or sister.
Helping Extended Family Members To Regain Their Physical and Emotional Strength
The disappearance of a child affects many people -- grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. They, too, will experience deep emotional scars from the sudden loss. All of you will need the love and support of one another. Extended family members can do a number of things -- contribute to the search effort, take care of other children, or stay in close phone contact -- to help them work through the pain and grief of losing a relative.
If possible, include extended family members in the search effort. Extended family members can serve a variety of functions -- as spokesperson for the family, coordinator of media events, coordinator of volunteers, or coordinator of searchers. They can also develop and disseminate posters and fliers, contact missing children's organizations to request assistance, and gather information to give to law enforcement to help in the search and recovery effort.
Put a daily report on your answering machine to keep family members informed of progress in the search. Law enforcement should keep you informed about the investigation, but in many cases extended family members are left out of such discussions. They may, as a result, feel left out and unsure of what to do. Putting simple messages on your answering machine will keep distant family members informed. It also will save you time from having to make or receive phone calls and in the process will help to free up your telephone line in the event that your child or someone with a tip is trying to get through.
Don't try to provide emotional support to everyone in your family. It is not your job to be an emotional "rock" for the extended family. Instead, encourage family members to seek support and comfort from friends and other family members, from their church or synagogue, or from local mental health agencies, professional counselors, or other community resources. Let members of your family know that you are depending on them to help you through this ordeal.
Previous Contents Next
O[Name removed]DP Report: When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide, May 1998
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 05, 2016, 11:29:54 AM
Strange isn't it when the McCann's are following what the guide says and they are pounced on for it, of course it is only the McCann's who are at fault not any of the other parents with missing children.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 11:37:47 AM
What would you like me to say ? It's a piece of fluff by a journalist who was probably paid a pretty penny for it. Now if you had cited Bridget's official statement we may have something to discuss.
A piece of fluff? There is nothing fluffy about that article. You seem to be insinuating that Bridget's article is at variance with the truth - now what would she have to gain from not telling it as it is? If the Wilkins found it strange (as you seem to) that neither McCann interrogated Jez Wilkins before they left the resort what was preventing her from saying so? Are you saying the Bridget's heartfelt (not fluffy at all IMO) article, she being an eyewitness to events in PdL around Madeleine's disappearance, should be disregarded as of no worth and giving us no insight whatsoever ? Perhaps it would be a different story if an anonymous OC holidaymaker at the time published a blog entry filled with McCann suspicions eh?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 11:39:15 AM
Kate's book was described as the truth, so her writings should fit the facts. The only holidaymaker who left early was the one who went to Switzerland on 4th, as far as I know. If Gerry was alert enough to notice all the lost info leaving at lunchtime it is strange that the same thought didn't occur to him a few hours later when he saw JW.
How do you know what did and did not occur to him or what he did or did not say to Jez Wilkins? Perhaps you could provide cites for what was going on in Gerry's mind.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 11:40:40 AM
What would you like me to say ? It's a piece of fluff by a journalist who was probably paid a pretty penny for it. Now if you had cited Bridget's official statement we may have something to discuss.
Incidentally, what I would like you to say is "I'm sorry I described the McCanns as indulging in a spot of sunbathing - that was just my spiteful bias showing, and I apologise for attempting to mislead the forum" - fat chance of that happening of course!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 05, 2016, 11:47:52 AM
A piece of fluff? There is nothing fluffy about that article. You seem to be insinuating that Bridget's article is at variance with the truth - now what would she have to gain from not telling it as it is? If the Wilkins found it strange (as you seem to) that neither McCann interrogated Jez Wilkins before they left the resort what was preventing her from saying so? Are you saying the Bridget's heartfelt (not fluffy at all IMO) article, she being an eyewitness to events in PdL around Madeleine's disappearance, should be disregarded as of no worth and giving us no insight whatsoever ? Perhaps it would be a different story if an anonymous OC holidaymaker at the time published a blog entry filled with McCann suspicions eh?
Did I say Bridget's article was at variance with the truth ? I don't think I did. Do I think Bridget's article should be disregarded ? That's for you to decide. I don't however think it adds anything to our knowledge.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 05, 2016, 11:50:07 AM
Incidentally, what I would like you to say is "I'm sorry I described the McCanns as indulging in a spot of sunbathing - that was just my spiteful bias showing, and I apologise for attempting to mislead the forum" - fat chance of that happening of course!
So what do you think the McCanns were doing 'by the pool' Alfie ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 05, 2016, 12:02:02 PM
So what do you think the McCanns were doing 'by the pool' Alfie ?
According to Bridget (whose words you seem happy to disregard) they suddenly appeared by the pool which suggests to me that they were on foot, perhaps en route from a to b. I don't think they were lounging about relaxing and topping up their tan as you have mischievously suggested.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 01:43:41 PM
Did I say Bridget's article was at variance with the truth ? I don't think I did. Do I think Bridget's article should be disregarded ? That's for you to decide. I don't however think it adds anything to our knowledge.
Good - so you aren't saying that Bridget's article is at variance with the truth, therefore we can assume it represents the truth as she saw it, personally I think the article adds to our knowledge of the mood in the resort in the aftermath of the disappearance and the anguish felt by the parents and those attempting to comfort them. It is a poignant insight into a tragic event, so I beg to differ with you that it adds nothing. It only adds nothing as far as you're concerned because the message is not one of suspicion, reproach, or censure.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 01:45:24 PM
A question for all - if you thought your child had been stolen in the night by a stranger in a foreign holiday resort where would you still be searching 12 - 24 hours later?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 05, 2016, 01:53:39 PM
So what do you think the McCanns were doing 'by the pool' Alfie ?
Maybe one of the relatives said 'lets get out of the apartment for a bit' maybe the twins wanted to go in the play area, or maybe they just decided they wanted a change of scenery. So what? In your mind unless they are stuck inside pacing up and down weeping and wailing or tearing around the streets of Portugal they are not behaving as parents of a missing child.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 05, 2016, 02:13:48 PM
Good - so you aren't saying that Bridget's article is at variance with the truth, therefore we can assume it represents the truth as she saw it, personally I think the article adds to our knowledge of the mood in the resort in the aftermath of the disappearance and the anguish felt by the parents and those attempting to comfort them. It is a poignant insight into a tragic event, so I beg to differ with you that it adds nothing. It only adds nothing as far as you're concerned because the message is not one of suspicion, reproach, or censure.
I'm sure the article did represent the truth as she saw it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 05, 2016, 02:32:31 PM
A question for all - if you thought your child had been stolen in the night by a stranger in a foreign holiday resort where would you still be searching 12 - 24 hours later?
I would be searching every day the places like they did in the dark all alone. One search together which is Important!
The break in constant phone activity:
4:55 to 6:02 AM 4 May
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 03:02:44 PM
According to Bridget (whose words you seem happy to disregard) they suddenly appeared by the pool which suggests to me that they were on foot, perhaps en route from a to b. I don't think they were lounging about relaxing and topping up their tan as you have mischievously suggested.
It is interesting actually. Apparently Mark Warner broke with tradition and opened the childcare facilities on the Saturday especially for the group's children, so I expect they were there to collect the twins.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 05, 2016, 07:10:50 PM
At lunchtime, over by the Tapas area, Gerry saw a crowd of departing guests waiting with their suitcases for the coach to take them to the airport. Among them was a guy with whom he had played tennis several times that week, accompanied by his wife and child. They still had another week of their holiday to go but had decided to return home because, as he explained to Gerry, it was just ‘too painful’ for them to stay any longer. Gerry felt sick. It was at this moment that it dawned on him just how many people would be leaving the resort that day without being interviewed. It would run into the hundreds. How much potentially valuable information was going to be lost for ever as a result? Madeleine Kate McCann
I wonder why everything is so complex? As far as I know the tennis courts were dominated by Mark Warner guests, just as the Tapas restaurant was. I can't find a Mark Warner guest who had booked for 14 nights, they all booked 7 nights. Have the Thomas Cook guests been left out of the files, but were there anyway, playing tennis and eating at the Tapas? The tennis coaches were Mark Warner employees, but were the courts open to all? Was the Tapas restaurant exclusively Mark Warner? They had 15-20 covers for dinner each night, were there covers reserved for Thomas Cook also?
However, Gerry knew by now of Jane Tanner's sighting so it is strange that, having had the above realisation at lunchtime, he neglected to ask JW later if he'd seen anything significant.
It would have been even more strange IMO if Jez had recalled something which he thought might be significant - if he then neglected to tell Gerry about it asap. Surely he would have already imparted any such info to him as a matter of urgency.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 05, 2016, 10:29:19 PM
What would you like me to say ? It's a piece of fluff by a journalist who was probably paid a pretty penny for it. Now if you had cited Bridget's official statement we may have something to discuss.
I reckon BO wrote or heavily edited Madeleine the book..JMO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 05, 2016, 10:33:02 PM
JMO on reading her Guardian? piece and vast chunks of the book there is a literary simlarity, you can call it guessing, matters not, was just musing,forget about it
8((()*/
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 06, 2016, 12:13:36 AM
So after all this did KM go out searching as soon as she had seen MM not there? And after calling for her/searching in the house?
Is there any evidence?
And why did she leave her other two kids alone? After she thought MM was abducted?
That is a massive red flag to me
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 06, 2016, 08:07:46 AM
Apparently - if Kate didn't react to every parents worst nightmare in exactly the same way they think they would have reacted - then there is something 'sinister' afoot.
It would seem none of them would have panicked - instead they would have calmly thought things through logically and then having assessed the situation - acted accordingly - in the best interests of all concerned.
(Pausing to watch a squadron of pigs flying past my window).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 06, 2016, 12:02:30 PM
A question for all - if you thought your child had been stolen in the night by a stranger in a foreign holiday resort where would you still be searching 12 - 24 hours later?
Indeed why search at all if you 'knew right away' that your daughter was taken? Why not phone the police right away if you knew right away your daughter was taken? AND if you are so convinced, as kate said she was, that her daughter could NOT get out of that apartment ( even though a door was left unlocked), did she bother to check other rooms etc before raising the alarm.? hmmm yeah it's a difficult one to get ones head round- no wonder there was so much confusion!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 06, 2016, 02:22:04 PM
Indeed why search at all if you 'knew right away' that your daughter was taken? Why not phone the police right away if you knew right away your daughter was taken? AND if you are so convinced, as kate said she was, that her daughter could NOT get out of that apartment ( even though a door was left unlocked), did she bother to check other rooms etc before raising the alarm.? hmmm yeah it's a difficult one to get ones head round- no wonder there was so much confusion!
Yes Kate did check the other rooms before raising the alarm, have you read her statement, she searched the apartment then it was searched again after she raised the alarm. They searched in case she had wandered out even if you believe your child has been abducted you still search the surrounding area just in case. The abductor could have dumped her near by dead or alive couldn't he?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 06, 2016, 02:36:58 PM
Yes Kate did check the other rooms before raising the alarm, have you read her statement, she searched the apartment then it was searched again after she raised the alarm. They searched in case she had wandered out even if you believe your child has been abducted you still search the surrounding area just in case. The abductor could have dumped her near by dead or alive couldn't he?
Yet she never checked whether Jane had taken her to her apartment.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 06, 2016, 02:43:14 PM
What thought process would have led her to the conclusion that JT had her?
I would have though that as a mother of a newly missing child you would clutch at any straw, no matter how fragile, before you had to accept the inevitable.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 06, 2016, 03:20:37 PM
I would have though that as a mother of a newly missing child you would clutch at any straw, no matter how fragile, before you had to accept the inevitable.
It's a good thought, actually. Jane knew that the patio door was open and that the children had cried the previous evening because Kate told her. Kate knew that Jane was at the apartments so it's not such a mental leap to wonder if Jane heard crying and went in to get Madeleine.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 06, 2016, 03:24:21 PM
I would have though that as a mother of a newly missing child you would clutch at any straw, no matter how fragile, before you had to accept the inevitable.
I would have thought in such a scenario your ability to think rationally might at least temporarily abandon you - but what do you and I know about it ? By the time Kate had "accepted the inevitable" wasn't JT or her other with her anyway?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 06, 2016, 03:34:58 PM
I would have thought in such a scenario your ability to think rationally might at least temporarily abandon you - but what do you and I know about it ? By the time Kate had "accepted the inevitable" wasn't JT or her other with her anyway?
Haven't we all lost a child, even for a few minutes ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 06, 2016, 04:03:30 PM
Can anyone produce a cite in relation to another missing child case anywhere in the world where the mother and father have been excoriated as the McCanns have been for 'not searching' while there was an ongoing full scale police search in progress for the child?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on June 06, 2016, 05:14:24 PM
Can anyone produce a cite in relation to another missing child case anywhere in the world where the mother and father have been excoriated as the McCanns have been for 'not searching' while there was an ongoing full scale police search in progress for the child?
It was just one of the many things that annoyed people.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 06, 2016, 05:45:39 PM
It is a red flag for at least three reasons, what it signals is anyones guess, isnt it? I personally find it bizarre. Presumably you find it perfectly understandable logical responsible totally descrptive of the parental instinct on discovery and normal. YOure entitled to your apologist opinion.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 06, 2016, 10:58:28 PM
It is a red flag for at least three reasons, what it signals is anyones guess, isnt it? I personally find it bizarre. Presumably you find it perfectly understandable logical responsible totally descrptive of the parental instinct on discovery and normal. YOure entitled to your apologist opinion.
Please don't refer to me as an apologist, I find it inaccurate and offensive, many thanks.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 06, 2016, 11:08:21 PM
Please don't refer to me as an apologist, I find it inaccurate and offensive, many thanks.
apologist əˈpɒlədʒɪst/ noun a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial.
Pretty much accurate,truth shouldnt offend, should it? After all youre only asking questions and getting your answers. LIking or not liking them doesnt come into it much.
Ps Id say enjoy derailing for the rest of the evening along with davel but i think his trap has been thankfully shut for abit, oooer, poor davel, tomorrows another day for goading derailing sarcasm and abuse, after all he said the forum would be boring without it and you make a fine pair on that score , tara
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 06, 2016, 11:16:44 PM
apologist əˈpɒlədʒɪst/ noun a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial.
Pretty much accurate,truth shouldnt offend, should it? After all youre only asking questions and getting your answers. LIking or not liking them doesnt come into it much.
Ps Id say enjoy derailing for the rest of the evening along with davel but i think his trap has been thankfully shut for abit, oooer, poor davel, tomorrows another day for goading derailing sarcasm and abuse, after all he said the forum would be boring without it and you make a fine pair on that score , tara
Another completely unwarranted personal attack. Out of interest have I ever been as rude to you as you constantly are towards me?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 06, 2016, 11:23:24 PM
Another completely unwarranted personal attack. Out of interest have I ever been as rude to you as you constantly are towards me?
If you dish it out expect it back, dont dish it out, you will get zero back, one cannot get fairer than that. discuss rationally and you should do ok. If you are annoyed at x y z you seem to take it out on anybody remotely not accepting the "script" and be in no doubt whatsoever there was a script. You have no right to do that.Thats your lot. My scales are as even as anubis's dear.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 06, 2016, 11:32:26 PM
If you dish it out expect it back, dont dish it out, you will get zero back, one cannot get fairer than that. discuss rationally and you should do ok. If you are annoyed at x y z you seem to take it out on anybody remotely not accepting the "script" and be in no doubt whatsoever there was a script. You have no right to do that.Thats your lot. My scales are as even as anubis's dear.
To repeat: have I ever been as rude to you as you are constantly towards me? I usually discuss subjects in a very rational and logical manner, occasionally I will use sarcasm, humour (and god help me) facetiousness to make a point, but then, don't we all?
A word about apologists which should help you to realise why I find your use of it to describe me and others here who think Madeleine was abducted offensive:
"Although some of us actually consider the role of a Christian apologist to be an honorable vocation and ministry, the term apologist is now largely used as a pejorative. The Jerusalem Post, for example, refers to Jimmy Carter as “Hamas’s apologist.” Similarly, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch calls John Esposito, a Western scholar on Islam funded by Saudi royalty, an Islamic “apologist.” Salon.com refers to Holocaust denier David Irving as “Hitler’s apologist.” Various scholars and critics of groups commonly called “cults” have referred to those scholars whose treatment of these groups was more sympathetic or exculpatory as “cult apologists.”
The connotation of apologist in this usage is pretty clear: an apologist is someone who defends the indefensible, for whatever reason (prejudice, power, and money are among the most common accusations). In popular usage, apologists are not truth-seekers but rather truth-benders, sophisticates skilled at making the irrational seem reasonable, the immoral seem moral, and the false seem true. Their intention is simply to defend the position they have chosen to take, come what may, facts and evidence to the contrary notwithstanding." Now, kindly stop your unwarranted attacks on me, or get added to my growing list of goaders to be ignored. Your choice.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 06, 2016, 11:47:09 PM
To repeat: have I ever been as rude to you as you are constantly towards me? I usually discuss subjects in a very rational and logical manner, occasionally I will use sarcasm, humour (and god help me) facetiousness to make a point, but then, don't we all?
A word about apologists which should help you to realise why I find your use of it to describe me and others here who think Madeleine was abducted offensive:
"Although some of us actually consider the role of a Christian apologist to be an honorable vocation and ministry, the term apologist is now largely used as a pejorative. The Jerusalem Post, for example, refers to Jimmy Carter as “Hamas’s apologist.” Similarly, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch calls John Esposito, a Western scholar on Islam funded by Saudi royalty, an Islamic “apologist.” Salon.com refers to Holocaust denier David Irving as “Hitler’s apologist.” Various scholars and critics of groups commonly called “cults” have referred to those scholars whose treatment of these groups was more sympathetic or exculpatory as “cult apologists.”
The connotation of apologist in this usage is pretty clear: an apologist is someone who defends the indefensible, for whatever reason (prejudice, power, and money are among the most common accusations). In popular usage, apologists are not truth-seekers but rather truth-benders, sophisticates skilled at making the irrational seem reasonable, the immoral seem moral, and the false seem true. Their intention is simply to defend the position they have chosen to take, come what may, facts and evidence to the contrary notwithstanding." Now, kindly stop your unwarranted attacks on me, or get added to my growing list of goaders to be ignored. Your choice.
Interesting indeed... Just click ignore,simples
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 07, 2016, 02:14:57 AM
On 16 May 2007 (the day the Madeleine Fund was launched), the father and a priest were desperately searching an area of Praia Da Luz exactly 2808 square feet in size.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 07, 2016, 08:02:38 AM
Yet she never checked whether Jane had taken her to her apartment.
I would of thought that if Jane [for some reason or other] had taken Madeleine to her apartment, she would have let the McCann's know what she had done, by either going to the Tapas and telling them or leaving a note, you don't just take a child without letting the parents know.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2016, 09:32:58 AM
I would of thought that if Jane [for some reason or other] had taken Madeleine to her apartment, she would have let the McCann's know what she had done, by either going to the Tapas and telling them or leaving a note, you don't just take a child without letting the parents know.
But there was the slight chance, no matter how slight, that she had. If your child was missing wouldn't you explore any scenario before you had, inevitably, to face the truth ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 07, 2016, 09:38:05 AM
I would of thought that if Jane [for some reason or other] had taken Madeleine to her apartment, she would have let the McCann's know what she had done, by either going to the Tapas and telling them or leaving a note, you don't just take a child without letting the parents know.
I doubt it would have crossed my mind, in any case Kate would have been blasted for going to Jane's apartment and leaving the twins unattended. She did the most obvious thing after a few minutes of searching - started shouting and attracting as many people's attention as possible. If it had transpired that Madeleine had been taken by Jane it would all have been done and dusted in 10 minutes anyway and we would not be here discussing this.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 07, 2016, 09:56:19 AM
But there was the slight chance, no matter how slight, that she had. If your child was missing wouldn't you explore any scenario before you had, inevitably, to face the truth ?
There is no reason at all for it to occur to Kate that Jayne had taken Madeleine from 5A as JT was not involved in their checking routine in any way. So why would it even enter her head?
In any case - the only time JT could have done that is on her way back to her own apartment to take over from Russell so that he could go and have his meal - and she didn't return herself. In that case Russell would have known about it and he would have told K&G when he got back to the table.
The whole idea is a non-starter IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2016, 10:09:48 AM
There is no reason at all for it to occur to Kate that Jayne had taken Madeleine from 5A as JT was not involved in their checking routine in any way. So why would it even enter her head?
In any case - the only time JT could have done that is on her way back to her own apartment to take over from Russell so that he could go and have his meal - and she didn't return herself. In that case Russell would have known about it and he would have told K&G when he got back to the table.
The whole idea is a non-starter IMO.
But according to supporters Kate was traumatised and not thinking rationallyso why on ear the do you think she'd be capable of rationally going through your reasoning above ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 07, 2016, 10:22:49 AM
But according to supporters Kate was traumatised and not thinking rationallyso why on ear the do you think she'd be capable of rationally going through your reasoning above ?
Why do you think she was not traumatised and capable of rational thought to enable her to come to the conclusion JT might have her child?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 07, 2016, 10:23:36 AM
But according to supporters Kate was traumatised and not thinking rationallyso why on ear the do you think she'd be capable of rationally going through your reasoning above ?
Because whatever thoughts were racing through her mind - Jayne Tanner would not be one of them - as there is not a single reason why Kate should think about Jayne at that terrible time. Just as no matter how panicked she was - alien abduction would not have entered her head either IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2016, 10:55:30 AM
Because whatever thoughts were racing through her mind - Jayne Tanner would not be one of them - as there is not a single reason why Kate should think about Jayne at that terrible time. Just as no matter how panicked she was - alien abduction would not have entered her head either IMO.
Madeleine was not in the apartment but Jane, as Kate knew, was in her's. Kate knew Madeleine was able to leave the apartment, she said as much to Fiona, so why wouldn't she hope, in her traumatised state, that Madeleine just may have gone to the other flats of the group to see if her parents were there and Jane had taken her in? What is so unbelievable about that? If I had been in Kate's position that's exactly the kind of hope I'd cling to until I'd seen Jane and had to face the awful truth.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 07, 2016, 11:21:02 AM
Madeleine was not in the apartment but Jane, as Kate knew, was in her's. Kate knew Madeleine was able to leave the apartment, she said as much to Fiona, so why wouldn't she hope, in her traumatised state, that Madeleine just may have gone to the other flats of the group to see if her parents were there and Jane had taken her in? What is so unbelievable about that? If I had been in Kate's position that's exactly the kind of hope I'd cling to until I'd seen Jane and had to face the awful truth.
How much time elapsed between Kate searching the apartment and realising Madeleine was missing and her being in the company of Russell and/ or Jane? What possible reason could JT have had for removing Madeleine from her bedroom and taking her to her own apartment without informing her parents first? Is that the kind of thing you would do?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2016, 11:26:02 AM
Madeleine was not in the apartment but Jane, as Kate knew, was in her's. Kate knew Madeleine was able to leave the apartment, she said as much to Fiona, so why wouldn't she hope, in her traumatised state, that Madeleine just may have gone to the other flats of the group to see if her parents were there and Jane had taken her in? What is so unbelievable about that? If I had been in Kate's position that's exactly the kind of hope I'd cling to until I'd seen Jane and had to face the awful truth.
She would have known that Jane Tanner would not have exited the apartment via the open window.
Once she had looked out of the window and checked that Madeleine was neither outside nor was she in the apartment the logical and most efficient approach to finding her was to raise the alarm as quickly as possible and have as many people as possible mobilised to look for her in the immediate vicinity.
That is what she did.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2016, 11:28:39 AM
How much time elapsed between Kate searching the apartment and realising Madeleine was missing and her being in the company of Russell and/ or Jane? What possible reason could JT have had for removing Madeleine from her bedroom and taking her to her own apartment without informing her parents first? Is that the kind of thing you would do?
Read my post Alfie. I don't mention Jane taking Madeleine from the apartment.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2016, 11:31:49 AM
She would have known that Jane Tanner would not have exited the apartment via the open window.
Once she had looked out of the window and checked that Madeleine was neither outside nor was she in the apartment the logical and most efficient approach to finding her was to raise the alarm as quickly as possible and have as many people as possible mobilised to look for her in the immediate vicinity.
That is what she did.
Logical and most efficient approach would be as you describe I agree but haven't supporters spent the last nine plus years telling us that Kate was traumatised and not thinking either logically or rationally? You really can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 07, 2016, 11:35:29 AM
I did indeed but that was not the post you were replying to. Now can you tell me why it would be impossible for Madeleine to leave the apartment, through the open patio door, to find her parents by going to their friend's apartments ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on June 07, 2016, 12:03:32 PM
I did indeed but that was not the post you were replying to. Now can you tell me why it would be impossible for Madeleine to leave the apartment, through the open patio door, to find her parents by going to their friend's apartments ?
Nothing is impossible, it is about what is likely. It is unlikely that Madeleine would have left the apartment on her own, certainly Kate is adamant that her own daughter (who let's face it, she knew better than you) would not have done so, so why you think it should have occurred to her that she was with JT I really don't understand. Well, actually yes I do - it's yet another means of criticising this woman who you clearly don't feel has received nearly enough close examination and criticising.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 07, 2016, 01:27:03 PM
Nothing is impossible, it is about what is likely. It is unlikely that Madeleine would have left the apartment on her own, certainly Kate is adamant that her own daughter (who let's face it, she knew better than you) would not have done so, so why you think it should have occurred to her that she was with JT I really don't understand. Well, actually yes I do - it's yet another means of criticising this woman who you clearly don't feel has received nearly enough close examination and criticising.
Kate to Fiona 3rd May;
whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 07, 2016, 01:37:12 PM
Logical and most efficient approach would be as you describe I agree but haven't supporters spent the last nine plus years telling us that Kate was traumatised and not thinking either logically or rationally? You really can't have it both ways.
She is an intelligent woman.
She is also a trained medic.
In my opinion immediately she had ascertained Madeleine was not to be found in the apartment her immediate instinct would be to get to Madeleine's father and to get assistance.
Are you suggesting that in the circumstances of believing someone had entered the apartment via the window and kidnapped her elder daughter that she was not traumatised, distraught and beside herself with grief and hysteria?
She got almost immediate assistance ~ logically and efficiently ~ which fitted exactly with her instinct and training whether she was at the time thinking rationally or not.
The priority was to get assistance to search for Madeleine and that is exactly what she did whether on auto pilot or as a rational thought process is neither here nor there. Her panic and distress cannot be estimated or underestimated or known to any who have not been in a similar situation but neither is that here nor there.
She did what she had to do ... she raised the alarm and started the search process ... so I am afraid you are very wrong ... I do have it both ways. In my opinion you seem unable to see the wood for the trees. Perhaps it is your understanding of the logic and capability of actions taken while suffering extreme trauma that might be missing something.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 07, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
OK, so in Kate's shoes you would think "Madeleine has obviously left the apartment of her own accord and gone to Jane Tanner's?" Why would she think that? Why that apartment? Madeleine didn't know Jane was there did she?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 07, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
Really very shocking indeed that Mr and Mrs Moyes who are referred to in this article were not interviewed until 2013 when Scotland Yard reopened Madeleine's case. They were out and about at the relevant time. They were on their balcony at the relevant time. They were on the top floor of Block 5. They helped in the search. Yet no-one interviewed them in 2007!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 07, 2016, 02:21:24 PM
OK, so in Kate's shoes you would think "Madeleine has obviously left the apartment of her own accord and gone to Jane Tanner's?" Why would she think that? Why that apartment? Madeleine didn't know Jane was there did she?
I was actually replying to your post saying that Kate knew her own daughter so if she said Madeleine wouldn't leave the apartment we should believe her. Clearly she changed her mind later about the possibility of Madeleine 'wandering'.
If the door was open so Madeleine could get out she could have gone anywhere.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 07, 2016, 02:52:06 PM
I was actually replying to your post saying that Kate knew her own daughter so if she said Madeleine wouldn't leave the apartment we should believe her. Clearly she changed her mind later about the possibility of Madeleine 'wandering'.
If the door was open so Madeleine could get out she could have gone anywhere.
I acknowledged that by starting my post with the word OK, then I went on to ask you follow up questions which you have chosen not to answer. Thanks for that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2016, 03:07:28 PM
whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
thanks G. I was just going to look for that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2016, 03:08:36 PM
OK, so in Kate's shoes you would think "Madeleine has obviously left the apartment of her own accord and gone to Jane Tanner's?" Why would she think that? Why that apartment? Madeleine didn't know Jane was there did she?
She may have tried other doors but Jane was the only one at home.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 07, 2016, 03:47:12 PM
On 16 May 2007 (the day the Madeleine Fund was launched), the father and a priest were desperately searching an area of Praia Da Luz exactly 2808 square feet in size.
Well, it was one of the last areas she was photographed in. Perhaps a stray tennis ball would have led them to a secret entrance of an underground tunnel.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 07, 2016, 05:59:12 PM
Ah the 'Kate is a victim' ploy to stymie debate. Your nothing if not predictable Alfie.
Kate IS a victim, of your sly innuendo and faulty logic. But as I said in my post before, do carry on thrashing away if it pleases you, which it obviously does.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 07, 2016, 06:21:10 PM
Kate IS a victim, of your sly innuendo and faulty logic. But as I said in my post before, do carry on thrashing away if it pleases you, which it obviously does.
Incorrect, yet again.
Kate is a 'victim' , as is her husband , of their own actions.
Madeleine is the victim.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 07, 2016, 11:11:18 PM
Kate IS a victim, of your sly innuendo and faulty logic. But as I said in my post before, do carry on thrashing away if it pleases you, which it obviously does.
Faulty logic? Perhaps you'd like to point out where I've displayed faulty logic?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: carlymichelle on June 07, 2016, 11:19:55 PM
Well, it was one of the last areas she was photographed in. Perhaps a stray tennis ball would have led them to a secret entrance of an underground tunnel.
Yes, less than 2 weeks after losing a chlld, the father was meticulously searching the tennis court.
"Wednesday 16th May, ... Gerry played tennis with Seddo, David, and the MW tennis coach. There was no way I could have done this" (Source: KM book)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 07, 2016, 11:35:06 PM
Faulty logic? Perhaps you'd like to point out where I've displayed faulty logic?
For a start you have assumed that a frantic mother on discovering her child missing would consider it quite likely that another mother had removed said child for her bedroom without first informing the child's parents that she had done so. You have not thought through why anyone responsible would take an upset child back to their own apartment or allow said child to come and stay in their own apartment rather than take her straight back to the child's parents. You have then used this illogical argument as a reason to berate Kate for not doing something which clearly makes little sense in the first place. There is no logical reason for Kate to have immediatelythought that Madeleine might be at Jane's apartment. No mother (knowing how anxious a parent doing a check on their children and finding one missing would be) would fail to immediately inform that parent of the child's movements.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 07, 2016, 11:59:26 PM
Is it physically possible at 11.15pm the apparently missing child was still in the apartment?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 08, 2016, 12:03:44 AM
For a start you have assumed that a frantic mother on discovering her child missing would consider it quite likely that another mother had removed said child for her bedroom without first informing the child's parents that she had done so. You have not thought through why anyone responsible would take an upset child back to their own apartment or allow said child to come and stay in their own apartment rather than take her straight back to the child's parents. You have then used this illogical argument as a reason to berate Kate for not doing something which clearly makes little sense in the first place. There is no logical reason for Kate to have immediatelythought that Madeleine might be at Jane's apartment. No mother (knowing how anxious a parent doing a check on their children and finding one missing would be) would fail to immediately inform that parent of the child's movements.
All nonsense of course. A mother finding her child missing would clutch at any straw she could until she was forced to accept the inevitable.
If she had left the apartment Madeleine may just have arrived at Jane's apartment and Jane may have been in the process of taking her to her parents, after perhaps comforting her if she was upset. At that point Kate wouldn't have been able to rule that out until she had seen Jane
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 08, 2016, 12:24:08 AM
There are plenty of other cases where more than an hour into the search an apparently missing child was still inside the residence.
Yes, we are aware of that from case precedents. If it is difficult to explain how a child disappeared without trace from an unguarded apartment, it is even more difficult to explain how she disappeared from a guarded apartment.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 08, 2016, 12:28:18 AM
Yes, we are aware of that from case precedents. If it is difficult to explain how a child disappeared without trace from an unguarded apartment, it is even more difficult to explain how she disappeared from a guarded apartment.
Yes but you are jumping ahead Misty.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 08, 2016, 12:34:58 AM
Yes, we are aware of that from case precedents. If it is difficult to explain how a child disappeared without trace from an unguarded apartment, it is even more difficult to explain how she disappeared from a guarded apartment.
This is a good point but I believe Pegasus has not reached that far in his/her analysis
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 08, 2016, 12:46:09 AM
All nonsense of course. A mother finding her child missing would clutch at any straw she could until she was forced to accept the inevitable.
100% correct especially seeing as they thought it was so safe
When your child is not where it should be abduction is not the first thing You are SURE of even though it might be in the back of your mind especially NOT if youve left the place open in case your child woke and was ABLE to come find you...ad to the shutters..well, that could easily be embellishment
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 08, 2016, 12:49:59 AM
100% correct especially seeing as they thought it was so safe
When your child is not where it should be abduction is not the first thing You are SURE of even though it might be in the back of your mind especially NOT if youve left the place open in case your child woke and was ABLE to come find you...ad to the shutters..well, that could easily be embellishment
How do you explain the fact that none of the other lights in the apartment had been turned on by a child merely seeking her parents (aside from the open window & shutter)?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 08, 2016, 12:58:52 AM
So should I be pausing at the point KM returned to the Tapas, or when, exactly, please? Guarded or unguarded?
Partly guarded IMO Misty. For example when there were 3 GNR officers there, 2 of them went off searching by foot and by car (see GNR statements), so this left only one GNR officer outside the apartment, and how can one officer outside guard both the front door and the back door?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 08, 2016, 01:06:22 AM
Partly guarded IMO Misty. For example when there were 3 GNR officers there, 2 of them went off searching by foot and by car (see GNR statements), so this left only one GNR officer outside the apartment, and how can one officer outside guard both the front door and the back door?
I would have hoped (although probably wishful thinking given all other failures) that the front door had been double-locked by that time & the lonesome officer was guarding the patio door. The one major issue for me is - where was the front door key when KM returned to the apartment at 10pm? Was her failure to immediately go out front down to the fact that she couldn't get out the door because it was double-locked & GM had the key, in which case no way did Madeleine go out that door on her own.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 08, 2016, 01:06:31 AM
How do you explain the fact that none of the other lights in the apartment had been turned on by a child merely seeking her parents (aside from the open window & shutter)?
I dont tend to worry about small details that probably dont matter
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 08, 2016, 01:09:42 AM
I would have hoped (although probably wishful thinking given all other failures) that the front door had been double-locked by that time & the lonesome officer was guarding the patio door. The one major issue for me is - where was the front door key when KM returned to the apartment at 10pm? Was her failure to immediately go out front down to the fact that she couldn't get out the door because it was double-locked & GM had the key, in which case no way did Madeleine go out that door.
Nope, front door "was probably unlocked/was unlocked" per the mccannss police statements
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 08, 2016, 01:14:10 AM
I dont tend to worry about small details that probably dont matter
Why don't the small details matter? A child who gets out of bed to use the toilet turns a light on. If that child is well-trained, she will probably turn the light and return to her darkened room without calling for her parents. If a child wakes under normal circumstances & leaves her bed, can't find her parents in the darkened rooms, do you not believe she would have turned on additional lighting? It's like not putting on your shoes to walk on those cobbled pavements.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 08, 2016, 01:20:57 AM
Why don't the small details matter? A child who gets out of bed to use the toilet turns a light on. If that child is well-trained, she will probably turn the light and return to her darkened room without calling for her parents. If a child wakes under normal circumstances & leaves her bed, can't find her parents in the darkened rooms, do you not believe she would have turned on additional lighting? It's like not putting on your shoes to walk on those cobbled pavements.
Shall agree to disagree, if there is sufficient lighting whch there was that will do for a 3 year old, they wlll escape or go to the loo no problem
Small details
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 08, 2016, 01:31:41 AM
I would have hoped (although probably wishful thinking given all other failures) that the front door had been double-locked by that time & the lonesome officer was guarding the patio door. ... (snip)
With only 2 other officers at the scene the GNR commander made a good decision that he and one officer should search the area for the missing girl, leaving the other officer outside the apartment. The other two children were still inside the children's bedroom at this stage.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 08, 2016, 01:37:45 AM
Shall agree to disagree, if there is sufficient lighting whch there was that will do for a 3 year old, they wlll escape or go to the loo no problem
Small details
There was already background light in the apartment from the small tablelamp in the lounge. A child fleeing and hiding would not turn another light on.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 08, 2016, 01:41:28 AM
There was already background light in the apartment from the small tablelamp in the lounge. A child fleeing and hiding would not turn another light on.
Thats what i just said lol besides a chld intent in getting out probably could lights or no lights, young children can do all sorts of things, they dont need to turn the light on first like an oap lol
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 08, 2016, 01:52:10 AM
Thats what i just said lol besides a chld intent in getting out probably could lights or no lights, young children can do all sorts of things, they dont need to turn the light on first like an oap lol
IMO a child going to the bathroom would possibly turn a light on.
But a child urgently hiding would not turn a light on.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 08, 2016, 02:30:41 AM
IMO a child going to the bathroom would possibly turn a light on.
But a child urgently hiding would not turn a light on.
Oh i see what yu mean but why would a child hide when its mother left the door open for them to go out fnd her, surely would go look for mum if the boogie man was at the window
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 08, 2016, 10:45:33 AM
All nonsense of course. A mother finding her child missing would clutch at any straw she could until she was forced to accept the inevitable.
If she had left the apartment Madeleine may just have arrived at Jane's apartment and Jane may have been in the process of taking her to her parents, after perhaps comforting her if she was upset. At that point Kate wouldn't have been able to rule that out until she had seen Jane
There is absolutely nothing nonsensical about what I have written, unless you care to demonstrate what is nonsense and why? In the nine years I have been following this case, it is only recently that I have come across this stick to beat Kate with, which seems to suggest to me that it has taken the best part of 9 years to come up with it, and yet you seem to think that one of the first things Kate should have thought on finding her child missing (a child who had never got up and left the apartment on her own before at night) was "oh she's probably just nipped round to Jane Tanner's apartment for some comfort" - now that really IS nonsense.
But as it happens, within a few minutes of finding Madeleine missing, Kate WAS running in the direction of JT's apartment, searching for Madeleine - so....your argument really is in tatters IMO, sorry.
FromJT's Rogatory:
"...the next thing I can remember is seeing Kate and Fiona, they came running from the direction of Kate’s flat, say sort of along the, sort of it’s, I’ll try and describe how it is, but as you come into the flats there’s sort of a passageway and there’s flats above so there’s a roof and there’s a passageway, it’s really badly described, but they came running along there and they were shouting ‘Madeleine’ and they were like looking in the stairwell and what have you".
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2016, 11:24:51 AM
There is absolutely nothing nonsensical about what I have written, unless you care to demonstrate what is nonsense and why? In the nine years I have been following this case, it is only recently that I have come across this stick to beat Kate with, which seems to suggest to me that it has taken the best part of 9 years to come up with it, and yet you seem to think that one of the first things Kate should have thought on finding her child missing (a child who had never got up and left the apartment on her own before at night) was "oh she's probably just nipped round to Jane Tanner's apartment for some comfort" - now that really IS nonsense.
But as it happens, within a few minutes of finding Madeleine missing, Kate WAS running in the direction of JT's apartment, searching for Madeleine - so....your argument really is in tatters IMO, sorry.
FromJT's Rogatory:
"...the next thing I can remember is seeing Kate and Fiona, they came running from the direction of Kate’s flat, say sort of along the, sort of it’s, I’ll try and describe how it is, but as you come into the flats there’s sort of a passageway and there’s flats above so there’s a roof and there’s a passageway, it’s really badly described, but they came running along there and they were shouting ‘Madeleine’ and they were like looking in the stairwell and what have you".
So my illogical theory is suddenly logical ! Hilarious.
BTW did Kate make a beeline for Jane's apartment or was she simply searching indiscriminately ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 08, 2016, 11:50:27 AM
So my illogical theory is suddenly logical ! Hilarious.
BTW did Kate make a beeline for Jane's apartment or was she simply searching indiscriminately ?
What are you finding hilarious? The fact is, Kate searched the apartment, raised the alarm and then went searching when she encountered JT, all within the space of a few minutes. At what point exactly would you have expected her to have the amazing revelation that Madeleine left the apartment by herself in the middle of the night (something she had never done before) and gone to seek comfort with JT? You really are going to have to come up with another stick now, this one is snapped in two, soz la!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
What are you finding hilarious? The fact is, Kate searched the apartment, raised the alarm and then went searching when she encountered JT, all within the space of a few minutes. At what point exactly would you have expected her to have the amazing revelation that Madeleine left the apartment by herself in the middle of the night (something she had never done before) and gone to seek comfort with JT? You really are going to have to come up with another stick now, this one is snapped in two, soz la!
Wouldn't any frantic mother have checked first before raising the alarm ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 08, 2016, 12:37:19 PM
Okay let's put this in a different setting. You're child is in bed and you see this as an opportunity to pop to the shop. When you get back they're not there. Your friend lives two doors up from you and although she is usually at work at this time occasionally she comes home early. Even knowing your child probably wasn't at your friend's, wouldn't you check anyway, even by phone, before having to consider that something more sinister has happened ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Okay let's put this in a different setting. You're child is in bed and you see this as an opportunity to pop to the shop. When you get back they're not there. Your friend lives two doors up from you and although she is usually at work at this time occasionally she comes home early. Even knowing your child probably wasn't at your friend's, wouldn't you check anyway, even by phone, before having to consider that something more sinister has happened ?
You return from popping into the nearest shop to discover your nearly four year old missing from her bed and the bedroom window, closed when you left now wide open.
After a quick check she isn't curled up asleep somewhere in the house ... you run to your husband who is with friends thirty seconds away at the foot of the garden ... screaming to raise the alarm.
Why would you waste time checking with your friend somewhere along the street ... bearing in mind the proximity of your child's father ... who along with friends will check out all that needs to be checked in the hope of finding the child before the police need to be alerted.
I think the open window was the clue.
Besides the point, what kind of friend is it who doesn't immediately take a wandering child straight home??
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 08, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Okay let's put this in a different setting. You're child is in bed and you see this as an opportunity to pop to the shop. When you get back they're not there. Your friend lives two doors up from you and although she is usually at work at this time occasionally she comes home early. Even knowing your child probably wasn't at your friend's, wouldn't you check anyway, even by phone, before having to consider that something more sinister has happened ?
Of course Kate was frantic. Frantic people in such a situation, knowing that their other half is sat not 100 meters away will raise the alarm asap, not calmly consider all the possible permutations of where the child might be and check them all out first. I can assure you that in a similar scenario it would not even cross my mind for a second that my child had, in the middle of the night, taken themselves off to the neighbours for comfort.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 08, 2016, 03:29:36 PM
You return from popping into the nearest shop to discover your nearly four year old missing from her bed and the bedroom window, closed when you left now wide open.
After a quick check she isn't curled up asleep somewhere in the house ... you run to your husband who is with friends thirty seconds away at the foot of the garden ... screaming to raise the alarm.
Why would you waste time checking with your friend somewhere along the street ... bearing in mind the proximity of your child's father ... who along with friends will check out all that needs to be checked in the hope of finding the child before the police need to be alerted.
I think the open window was the clue.
Besides the point, what kind of friend is it who doesn't immediately take a wandering child straight home??
Well exactly - sorry I should have read your response before replying as I have pretty much repeated exactly what you have said.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2016, 04:34:41 PM
Well exactly - sorry I should have read your response before replying as I have pretty much repeated exactly what you have said.
I think the whole argument, like a lot of other things when it comes to Madeleine McCann's case is just too complicated to be workable; if we ever find out what happened to Madeleine we will probably discover that the explanation was the simplest one.
The suggestion that an individual would not immediately take action if a child arrived hypothetically at their doorstep in the middle of the night strikes me as being an odd one.
One Sunday morning some years ago an uncommunicative, sweet elderly lady arrived at our door. It was chilly and although properly dressed her outerwear was a light cardigan. She had slippers on her feet. We of course took her in. We assumed she had wandered from the nearby nursing home; actually, she hadn't ... but that is another story.
It was incumbent on us to
find out where she came from by contacting and alerting the appropriate people, in this case not the nursing home along the road ~ we knew someone would be frantic about her whereabouts (and they were)
if we had been unable to do that, we would have alerted the police
we discovered where she had come from and arranged to take her home (we didn't have to do that as she would have been picked up, but she seemed OK with us doing so
We felt it was incumbent on us to help a vulnerable person to be returned to a place of safety. Can you imagine the situation had that been a vulnerable almost four year old child at our door that Sunday morning, and the lengths we would have taken to reunite her with her parents.
It is a non-starter to castigate Madeleine's mother for not thinking Madeleine was with a friend. In my opinion that is a situation that would never have happened.
However, had she done as suggested and wasted time by leaving the twins and going into the main entrance of the building and Jane Tanner's door ... I rather imagine she would have been criticised for that too.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2016, 05:29:40 PM
All this does suggest that the front door could have been locked and the key needed to open it was with Gerry. Seeing the open window would suggest at first that Madeleine had gone that way. Kate looked out, but would perhaps have run out of the front door for a better look round up and down the road, for cars just about to leave, etc if she was able. There wasn't much of a view from the window.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2016, 05:54:10 PM
All this does suggest that the front door could have been locked and the key needed to open it was with Gerry. Seeing the open window would suggest at first that Madeleine had gone that way. Kate looked out, but would perhaps have run out of the front door for a better look round up and down the road, for cars just about to leave, etc if she was able. There wasn't much of a view from the window.
Better than from the recessed front door.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 08, 2016, 06:33:42 PM
Wouldn't any frantic mother have checked first before raising the alarm ?
Checked where? Kate knew right away she was taken BUT didn't phone the police right away- lost valuable time. Speaking of which... what time has been established regarding Maddies Disappearance? anytime between 8ish and 10ish? "After a quick check she isn't curled up asleep somewhere in the house ... you run to your husband who is with friends thirty seconds away at the foot of the garden ... screaming to raise the alarm."
Run? why not shout from the apartment, the one that was only 30 seconds away, and like almost like in a garden... like you could see the apartment like...screaming? what? really? no, I don't think she was screaming. myth making? She ran because the children nor she, could not be seen or heard from that tapas table - Neither could ANY of the entrances be seen. IF we are going to play silly beggars then how about you see your child drowning... do you run to where your partner is sitting to tell them? OR do you scream *frantically* Help my child is....but maybe that is not what intelligent Doctors would do, just chavvie types.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 08, 2016, 06:42:00 PM
Stepping beyond the recess and having a bleedin' good shufti is completely out of the question I suppose ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on June 08, 2016, 06:49:54 PM
I'm with Alfie and Brietta on this one. I can't see any suspicious behaviour. There are multiple ways you could act/think which are completely natural and not always completely logical.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 08, 2016, 06:51:58 PM
It would make sense to step out wouldn't it. @)(++(*
No my dears, there was no need, none what so ever because... Jane saw Maddie being taken..oh no wait.. when did JT fess up about 'knowing who dunnit' and she would have known the time and she would have said OMG I remember now I saw Maddie being abducted at 9 ish or words to that effect.. is that in Kates book that bit?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2016, 07:34:45 PM
Of course Kate was frantic. Frantic people in such a situation, knowing that their other half is sat not 100 meters away will raise the alarm asap, not calmly consider all the possible permutations of where the child might be and check them all out first. I can assure you that in a similar scenario it would not even cross my mind for a second that my child had, in the middle of the night, taken themselves off to the neighbours for comfort.
Not for comfort, to find her parents. Isn't that why the patio doors were left open?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 08, 2016, 07:37:51 PM
Yet the mccanns claim it would be very unlikely she could get out. %&5%£ %&5%£
I'm trying this for size.... darling I am leaving a door unlocked so you can't get out. Hmmm or the door is unlocked but don't dare go out... nope... help me out here guys!
So the search was all about some state of frantic ness... everyone was searching apart from the phone call that stated no one was looking, the police were too busytaking statements lazy to be looking for their daughter- all the while JT saw the child being 'taken' and Kate just knew she had been taken..Oh gawd I'm exhausted already.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 08, 2016, 08:29:52 PM
Not for comfort, to find her parents. Isn't that why the patio doors were left open?
If that was the reason then why on earth would Kate have reason to believe Madeleine had gone to JT's apartment instead? Time to accept this argument of yours is pointless and petty.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2016, 10:48:08 PM
If that was the reason then why on earth would Kate have reason to believe Madeleine had gone to JT's apartment instead? Time to accept this argument of yours is pointless and petty.
Perhaps because she'd been in her parent's friend's apartments that week and just may gave thought her parents were there ?
BTW Alfie if my argument is so pointless why are you using so much energy trying to discredit it ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 08, 2016, 10:58:32 PM
Perhaps because she'd been in her parent's friend's apartments that week and just may gave thought her parents were there ?
BTW Alfie if my argument is so pointless why are you using so much energy trying to discredit it ?
Because I dislike this sort of spiteful claptrap (a sly way of pointing the finger and suggesting without actually saying it that Kate didn't go to JT's apartment because she knew Madeleine couldn't be there) and like to highlight the faulty reasoning that comes with it. I find it quite satisfying poking holes in these daft notions though oftentimes it's a little like shooting fish in a barrel, so really not much energy needed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2016, 11:38:19 PM
Because I dislike this sort of spiteful claptrap (a sly way of pointing the finger and suggesting without actually saying it that Kate didn't go to JT's apartment because she knew Madeleine couldn't be there) and like to highlight the faulty reasoning that comes with it. I find it quite satisfying poking holes in these daft notions though oftentimes it's a little like shooting fish in a barrel, so really not much energy needed.
I'm afraid, as usual, you are reading far too much in to what I have posted. Is it really not possible for you to post a reasoned rebuttal instead of the unnecessary insults that seem to pepper your posts more and more often of late?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 08, 2016, 11:43:05 PM
I'm afraid, as usual, you are reading far too much in to what I have posted. [b[Is it really not possible for you to post a reasoned rebuttal instead of the unnecessary insults that seem to pepper your posts more and more often of late?[/b]
No it isnt otherwise the raison daitre would cease
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 09, 2016, 08:17:22 AM
I'm afraid, as usual, you are reading far too much in to what I have posted. Is it really not possible for you to post a reasoned rebuttal instead of the unnecessary insults that seem to pepper your posts more and more often of late?
It is impossible to fully rebut why someone didn't act the way YOU think they ought to have, but I have very successfully shown you why I think your argument is flawed, pointless and just another stick you're using to beat up the mother of a missing child, albeit a rather weak stick. Now, you carry on arguing til you're blue in the face that you know best what a woman in Kate's situation would have done and should have done, I'll now leave you to it - enjoy!
ETA: One further thought before I leave you to your pointless argument - you claim I am reading far too much into what you have posted but I would just like to point out that this is disingenuous claptrap. Your firm belief is that Kate staged an abduction and that therefore she would know full well that Madeleine couldn't possibly be at JT's apartment, hence pointless to rush round there. That being the case your "only asking questions" about why didn't Kate go straight round to JT's apartment when she found Madeleine missing is clearly yet another attempt by you to suggest Kate's guilt and involvement in a cover up. Deny it all you like, some of us are quite capable of seeing through your tactics.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 09, 2016, 08:22:08 AM
cIt is impossible to fully rebut why someone didn't act the way YOU think they ought to have, but I have very successfully shown you why I think your argument is flawed, pointless and just another stick you're using to beat up the mother of a missing child, albeit a rather weak stick. Now, you carry on arguing til you're blue in the face that you know best what a woman in Kate's situation would have done and should have done, I'll now leave you to it - enjoy!
So, you know what a woman would have done in Kate's situation then ?
From what perspective would you do that ?
You weren't there, and you do not know what happened that night.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 09, 2016, 08:45:04 AM
No my dears, there was no need, none what so ever because... Jane saw Maddie being taken..oh no wait.. when did JT fess up about 'knowing who dunnit' and she would have known the time and she would have said OMG I remember now I saw Maddie being abducted at 9 ish or words to that effect.. is that in Kates book that bit?
Jane Tanner didn't 'fess up' to anything. She told the police as soon as they arrived about the man she had seen carrying a child - IIRC they did nothing about it at the time and it was not until the next day that at Jane's own request they went with her to the place where she saw the man.
The reason she didn't immediately tell Kate was because at such an early stage it was possible that Madeleine could be found and returned at any minute and she didn't want to unnecessarily add to Kate's state of extreme fear that her daughter had been abducted.
AIMHO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 09, 2016, 08:48:56 AM
Jane Tanner didn't 'fess up' to anything. She told the police as soon as they arrived about the man she had seen carrying a child - IIRC they did nothing about it at the time and it was not until the next day that at Jane's own request they went with her to the place where she saw the man.
The reason she didn't immediately tell Kate was because at such an early stage it was possible that Madeleine could be found and returned at any minute and she didn't want to unnecessarily add to Kate's state of extreme fear that her daughter had been abducted.
AIMHO
They had already claimed abduction, so that doesn't wash.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: carlymichelle on June 09, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Perhaps because she'd been in her parent's friend's apartments that week and just may gave thought her parents were there ?
BTW Alfie if my argument is so pointless why are you using so much energy trying to discredit it ?
When did Madeleine go to Jayne's apartment that week plz?
IIRC you originally asked why Kate didn't go to JT's apartment to see if Madeleine was there.
IMO Faith there are several reasons why JT would not even enter Kates head at the moment when she found her daughter was missing:-
JT was not involved in the McCanns checking arrangement.
JT was not a close friend - having only met the McCanns half a dozen times in the 4 years she had known them and Madeleine would hardly know JT at all before this holiday - so was not likely to think of her as someone to go to.
JT had never been in McCanns apartment - so no prior 'connection' there to make Kate think of her.
JT would not have taken Madeleine out of her apartment without letting her parents know. But even if she had - Russell would know because the only time JT could have done that was on her way back to take over from him so that he could go and have his meal.
I'm sure Kate's mind would have been racing with all kinds of thoughts from the moment she found Madeleine had gone, but I doubt very much indeed that Jayne Tanner was one of them. It's just far too unlikely IMO.
AIMHO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 09, 2016, 09:27:25 AM
and it does not relate to the comment I made, does it?
I commented that at such an early stage it was still possible that Madeleine could be found and returned and regardless of what had happened that is what Jayne Tanner and everyone else would be hoping for.
You said that didn't wash because 'abduction' had already been claimed. So what? Abducted children can be found and returned to their parents - so what is your problem with anyone holding out the very normal hope that abducted or not - she could still be found in those first few hours? She could have abducted and then dumped by the roadside for all anyone knew at that time.
AIMHO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on June 09, 2016, 10:19:16 AM
Even abducted children are found alive and are reunited with their parents Stephen.
yes ....but was maddie abducted..............we don't know ...do we ...no proof
i did mean to post this on your post regarding the experts
@benice (i.e the parents of other abducted children - especially those who have spent time with the McCanns) believe them and support them - is the most compelling evidence of all IMO.
If anyone could spot a 'fake' - then it would be those people IMO.
In her book, Prousa refers to the opinions of criminal psychologist Dr. Christian Ludke. Ludke, who has regular contact with parents who have lost a child due to crime, warned early on in the McCann investigation the McCann’s behaviour was pointing towards them being involved. During interview he explained that in his experience parents in such circumstances as being posited by the McCanns “are under massive shock, were helpless, were insecure, withdrawing themselves.” ”They have an inner struggle, blaming themselves for possibly not have looked enough after their child.” Conversely, the McCanns “live completely different, often harmonic.” Already after a few days they went jogging, as if that was a normal thing to do, they always came together.” ”These parents took matters into their own hands instead of leaving matters in the hands of the police. They distanced themselves from their two other children by going on a European tour, that to me is very strange.” The interview with Ludke can be read here christian ludke
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 09, 2016, 10:22:17 AM
When did Madeleine go to Jayne's apartment that week plz?
IIRC you originally asked why Kate didn't go to JT's apartment to see if Madeleine was there.
IMO Faith there are several reasons why JT would not even enter Kates head at the moment when she found her daughter was missing:-
JT was not involved in the McCanns checking arrangement.
JT was not a close friend - having only met the McCanns half a dozen times in the 4 years she had known them and Madeleine would hardly know JT at all before this holiday - so was not likely to think of her as someone to go to.
JT had never been in McCanns apartment - so no prior 'connection' there to make Kate think of her.
JT would not have taken Madeleine out of her apartment without letting her parents know. But even if she had - Russell would know because the only time JT could have done that was on her way back to take over from him so that he could go and have his meal.
I'm sure Kate's mind would have been racing with all kinds of thoughts from the moment she found Madeleine had gone, but I doubt very much indeed that Jayne Tanner was one of them. It's just far too unlikely IMO.
AIMHO
It is a subject of constant amusement to me that while supporters constantly tell members what Kate may or may not have thought, done or said they disparage sceptics ability to do the self same thing.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 09, 2016, 10:52:47 AM
yes ....but was maddie abducted..............we don't know ...do we ...no proof
i did mean to post this on your post regarding the experts
@benice (i.e the parents of other abducted children - especially those who have spent time with the McCanns) believe them and support them - is the most compelling evidence of all IMO.
If anyone could spot a 'fake' - then it would be those people IMO.
In her book, Prousa refers to the opinions of criminal psychologist Dr. Christian Ludke. Ludke, who has regular contact with parents who have lost a child due to crime, warned early on in the McCann investigation the McCann’s behaviour was pointing towards them being involved. During interview he explained that in his experience parents in such circumstances as being posited by the McCanns “are under massive shock, were helpless, were insecure, withdrawing themselves.” ”They have an inner struggle, blaming themselves for possibly not have looked enough after their child.” Conversely, the McCanns “live completely different, often harmonic.” Already after a few days they went jogging, as if that was a normal thing to do, they always came together.” ”These parents took matters into their own hands instead of leaving matters in the hands of the police. They distanced themselves from their two other children by going on a European tour, that to me is very strange.” The interview with Ludke can be read here christian ludke
Has this man ever met or spoken to the McCanns? Some of his statements are opinions which many other people would not agree with - including the experts who unlike that person - actually spent time with the McCanns and found nothing suspicious whatsoever with their reactions or behaviour. Does this Dr. not know the therapeutic and stress busting effects of jogging for instance?
If you don't think those parents of other abducted children are the 'real' experts then that's your prerogative. IMO no-one can possibly know better than THEY do about every last single terrible effect this nightmare experience has on the parents. And I repeat - if anyone could spot a fake it would be those people. Any claim that they could not - is insulting to them IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on June 09, 2016, 11:09:58 AM
Has this man ever met or spoken to the McCanns? Some of his statements are opinions which many other people would not agree with - including the experts who unlike that person - actually spent time with the McCanns and found nothing suspicious whatsoever with their reactions or behaviour. Does this Dr. not know the therapeutic and stress busting effects of jogging for instance?
If you don't think those parents of other abducted children are the 'real' experts then that's your prerogative. IMO no-one can possibly know better than THEY do about every last single terrible effect this nightmare experience has on the parents. And I repeat - if anyone could spot a fake it would be those people. Any claim that they could not - is insulting to them IMO.
is insulting to them ........well not as insulting as you ....dragging the mccs ...into those parents of abducted children who have there own grief ......there own loss...who have enough to contend with that...
without the mccs being poked down there throat every touch and turn ...like yourself...is doing
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 09, 2016, 11:16:19 AM
is insulting to them ........well not as insulting as you ....dragging the mccs ...into there own grief there own loss...who have enough to contend with that...
without the mccs being poked down there throat every touch and turn ...like yourself...is doing
What?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: lordpookles on June 09, 2016, 01:44:28 PM
^ it makes no sense.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 09, 2016, 06:50:08 PM
I commented that at such an early stage it was still possible that Madeleine could be found and returned and regardless of what had happened that is what Jayne Tanner and everyone else would be hoping for.
You said that didn't wash because 'abduction' had already been claimed. So what? Abducted children can be found and returned to their parents - so what is your problem with anyone holding out the very normal hope that abducted or not - she could still be found in those first few hours? She could have abducted and then dumped by the roadside for all anyone knew at that time.
AIMHO
Oh purleeeeeeeeeeeez stop it already. If you saw your friends daughter being ABDUCTED you wouldn't say anything just in case the anductor brought her back ?- now why on earth go to all the trouble of abducting her to take her back? Bejeezuz Why did Jane not shout to Gerry and Jes oh look Maddie is being abducted. I just can't believe the bullsh rubbish I have to read on here.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 09, 2016, 07:30:40 PM
It is a subject of constant amusement to me that while supporters constantly tell members what Kate may or may not have thought, done or said they disparage sceptics ability to do the self same thing.
That's because supporters see themselves as part of some extended family with special insight and the sceptics are the barbarians at the gates. I think there is a long convoluted psychological explanation for the phenomenon.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 09, 2016, 10:27:26 PM
That's because supporters see themselves as part of some extended family with special insight and the sceptics are the barbarians at the gates. I think there is a long convoluted psychological explanation for the phenomenon.
No doubt Alice, no doubt !
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 10, 2016, 12:04:29 AM
The thread is about SEARCHING. Please may we have an attempt to stay on topic.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 10, 2016, 12:50:41 AM
Search is controlled by assumptions - probably no-one wasted time searching the top cupboards of the wardrobes?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 10, 2016, 01:29:30 AM
My question was who would put a child in the top part of a wardrobe, an interrupted burglar?
Completely theoretically, yes. But why waste time deciding which 50% of places in a residence to search and which 50% to not search because of assumptions? It's quicker to just do a complete search, without assumptions.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 10, 2016, 02:30:14 AM
Completely theoretically, yes. But why waste time deciding which 50% of places in a residence to search and which 50% to not search because of assumptions? It's quicker to just do a complete search, without assumptions.
The police searched more than 50 per cent pegasus
Wheres youre 50 per cent? Top of wardrobes, behind bath panel and?
End of the day the child was not there (unless u thnk she might still be there) so isnt it academic? Its late, laters
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on June 10, 2016, 08:26:38 AM
sorry about that ....edited it now how it should have read....
Quote from: Benice on June 09, 2016, 10:52:47 AM Has this man ever met or spoken to the McCanns? Some of his statements are opinions which many other people would not agree with - including the experts who unlike that person - actually spent time with the McCanns and found nothing suspicious whatsoever with their reactions or behaviour. Does this Dr. not know the therapeutic and stress busting effects of jogging for instance?
If you don't think those parents of other abducted children are the 'real' experts then that's your prerogative. IMO no-one can possibly know better than THEY do about every last single terrible effect this nightmare experience has on the parents. And I repeat - if anyone could spot a fake it would be those people. Any claim that they could not - is insulting to them IMO.
is insulting to them ........well not as insulting as you ....dragging the mccs ...into those parents of abducted children who have there own grief ......there own loss...who have enough to contend with that...
without the mccs being poked down there throat every touch and turn ...like yourself...is doing
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 10, 2016, 09:28:39 AM
sorry about that ....edited it now how it should have read....
Quote from: Benice on June 09, 2016, 10:52:47 AM Has this man ever met or spoken to the McCanns? Some of his statements are opinions which many other people would not agree with - including the experts who unlike that person - actually spent time with the McCanns and found nothing suspicious whatsoever with their reactions or behaviour. Does this Dr. not know the therapeutic and stress busting effects of jogging for instance?
If you don't think those parents of other abducted children are the 'real' experts then that's your prerogative. IMO no-one can possibly know better than THEY do about every last single terrible effect this nightmare experience has on the parents. And I repeat - if anyone could spot a fake it would be those people. Any claim that they could not - is insulting to them IMO.
is insulting to them ........well not as insulting as you ....dragging the mccs ...into those parents of abducted children who have there own grief ......there own loss...who have enough to contend with that...
without the mccs being poked down there throat every touch and turn ...like yourself...is doing
Typical - you can't challenge the post - so you attack the poster.
Your apparent determination to believe that none of the parents of other abducted children ( like Coral Jones for instance ) - could possibly believe and support the McCanns is misplaced IMO as there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
'Wishful thinking' that they share your own very obvious extreme animosity towards the McCanns and need to be 'protected' from any association with them is not evidence.
AIMHO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 10, 2016, 10:35:36 AM
Oh purleeeeeeeeeeeez stop it already. If you saw your friends daughter being ABDUCTED you wouldn't say anything just in case the anductor brought her back ?- now why on earth go to all the trouble of abducting her to take her back? Bejeezuz Why did Jane not shout to Gerry and Jes oh look Maddie is being abducted. I just can't believe the bullsh rubbish I have to read on here.
Your comment makes no sense. Jayne had no reason to believe the man she saw was abducting Madeleine until after she had disappeared. Why would she? She told the police immediately - and that was the most important thing to do at that time.
If you don't believe that during those first hours - everyone was hoping she would be found - then that is not my problem.
If you don't believe that abducted children have ever been found and returned to their parents - then that is not my problem either.
AIMHO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: xtina on June 10, 2016, 10:36:35 AM
Typical - you can't challenge the post - so you attack the poster.
Your apparent determination to believe that none of the parents of other abducted children ( like Coral Jones for instance ) - could possibly believe and support the McCanns is misplaced IMO as there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
'Wishful thinking' that they share your own very obvious extreme animosity towards the McCanns and need to be 'protected' from any association with them is not evidence.
AIMHO
okaaaaaay..................now who have i attacked ..for a kick off
as for challenging your post ............did i not reply
what you can't grasp it works both ways......
you called me insulting......insulting the parents of abducted children
you said .......there support for the mccs ......is compelling evidence...
you don't know ........what they think or there opinion in R L
they have there own loss.....and unless you know them personally... how they feel about the mccs or have proof
or have proof........... you are wrong ...producing that as fact....
this is a maddie mccann ...discussion
don't involve other peoples grief to suit .........your agenda...or abduction
it has nothing to do with searching for maddie anyway..............something they personally never did
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 12, 2016, 10:11:48 PM
No idea Alfie. But a search that didn't look in any of the four top cupboards was very incomplete.
From one of the officers
Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see the washing machine. He did not see anything strange during the search and there was no sign of a break in. As regards the bed clothes of the child’s bed, he found it to have a normal disposition.
?
Why, out of curiosity do you think the top ones werent opened?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 13, 2016, 02:04:31 AM
Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see the washing machine. He did not see anything strange during the search and there was no sign of a break in. As regards the bed clothes of the child’s bed, he found it to have a normal disposition. ... (snip)
So in the living room the GNR looked in the sideboard but did not look behind the sofa.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 13, 2016, 02:09:55 AM
That's because supporters see themselves as part of some extended family with special insight and the sceptics are the barbarians at the gates. I think there is a long convoluted psychological explanation for the phenomenon.
No, it's just that some sceptics seem blame the McCann's for not behaving in a certain way, and when other examples are brought up they still won't acknowledge it. Kate has been blamed for not searching all week, for being stony faced and cold, for smiling, for wearing earrings, for leaving the twins in the room which she had just searched, for not being cool calm and collected when dealing with her missing child. In my opinion the McCann's are being made to be monsters, because some believe they are guilty, their belief of the McCann's guilt over shadows everything they read and see about the McCann's. Every single word every single action is twisted to show that they are guilty just as Amaral does in his book.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 13, 2016, 08:48:03 AM
No, it's just that some sceptics seem blame the McCann's for not behaving in a certain way, and when other examples are brought up they still won't acknowledge it. Kate has been blamed for not searching all week, for being stony faced and cold, for smiling, for wearing earrings, for leaving the twins in the room which she had just searched, for not being cool calm and collected when dealing with her missing child. In my opinion the McCann's are being made to be monsters, because some believe they are guilty, their belief of the McCann's guilt over shadows everything they read and see about the McCann's. Every single word every single action is twisted to show that they are guilty just as Amaral does in his book.
IMO the problem Sceptics have is there is no evidence to show that K&G (or their friends) were involved in their daughter's disappearance.
The remedy to that inconvenient fact appears to be to 'prove' that they are evil liars/parents/monsters etc etc etc and therefore must be guilty. It's nothing more than a mega character assassination IMO which involves trashing every single word they say and every single thing they do - down to the tiniest detail.
For example -' elsewhere' Kate's comments about her pink trainers are now being discussed and promoted as something 'sinister'.
The mind boggles.
AIMHO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 13, 2016, 08:59:43 AM
IMO the problem Sceptics have is there is no evidence to show that K&G (or their friends) were involved in their daughter's disappearance.
The remedy to that inconvenient fact appears to be to 'prove' that they are evil liars/parents/monsters etc etc etc and therefore must be guilty. It's nothing more than a mega character assassination IMO which involves trashing every single word they say and every single thing they do - down to the tiniest detail.
For example -' elsewhere' Kate's comments about her pink trainers are now being discussed and promoted as something 'sinister'.
The mind boggles.
AIMHO
In actuality, it is not known WHO or WHOM is involved in her disappearance, if anyone was.
What the supporters can't deal with, no matter any hype or belief, is there is no evidence of abduction, above any other scenario.
..and without abduction , where do all roads LEAD ? &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 13, 2016, 09:29:35 AM
In actuality, it is not known WHO or WHOM is involved in her disappearance, if anyone was.
What the supporters can't deal with, no matter any hype or belief, is there is no evidence of abduction, above any other scenario.
..and without abduction , where do all roads LEAD ? &%+((£
Not true. As far as I am concerned the open shutters and window are irrefutable evidence that an intruder had been in 5a that night.
The fact that you don't want to believe that is immaterial - as it is obvious that SY do believe that to be evidence of an intruder. If they did not believe that - then there would be no way they could have ruled the McCanns and their friends out of the enquiry in the way that they have.
You may believe there is no evidence of an abduction - but SY believe there is. As SY are the professionals with access to all the evidence and the rest of us are merely armchair detectives with access to only some of the evidence - it would never occur to me to presume that I know more about this case than they do - or that my conclusions are more informed and therefore superior to theirs.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 13, 2016, 09:44:30 AM
Not true. As far as I am concerned the open shutters and window are irrefutable evidence that an intruder had been in 5a that night.
The fact that you don't want to believe that is immaterial - as it is obvious that SY do believe that to be evidence of an intruder. If they did not believe that - then there would be no way they could have ruled the McCanns and their friends out of the enquiry in the way that they have.
You may believe there is no evidence of an abduction - but SY believe there is. As SY are the professionals with access to all the evidence and the rest of us are merely armchair detectives with access to only some of the evidence - it would never occur to me to presume that I know more about this case than they do - or that my conclusions are more informed and therefore superior to theirs.
There is no verification that the shutters or windows were moved before 10 pm.
Likewise, AS CLAIMED, the shutters were not jemmied.
There is no evidence of a break in, in the apartment.
As to SY , it is abundantly clear the investigation has achieved NOTHING.
Do keep up.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 13, 2016, 09:52:12 AM
"the open shutters and window are irrefutable evidence that an intruder had been in 5a that night"
In no way is that proof, of course.
The 'allegedly' open window that Kate claims to have discovered, it could be argued, is as much evidence of staging.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 13, 2016, 09:54:29 AM
a proper investigation must first rule in or out the parents before it can make any progress...SY must have done this to say parents are not suspects and therefore not lying...open window...evidence of abduction
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 13, 2016, 10:07:47 AM
a proper investigation must first rule in or out the parents before it can make any progress...SY must have done this to say parents are not suspects and therefore not lying...open window...evidence of abduction
Again, no verification of the window being open before 10 pm.
As to the investigation, they has only one yardstick, abduction. Nothing else ever mentioned, unless BHH stated the real truth, i.e. it was a murder investigation.
...and good old Mr. Mitchell said, no evidence of a break in.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 13, 2016, 10:08:49 AM
There is no verification that the shutters or windows were moved before 10 pm.
Likewise, AS CLAIMED, the shutters were not jemmied.
There is no evidence of a break in, in the apartment.
As to SY , it is abundantly clear the investigation has achieved NOTHING.
Do keep up.
Please don't keep using the excuse that 'jemmied' was used by Gerry's sister, the fact is Gerry found the shutters COULD be raised from outside, the only way the shutters SHOULD HAVE been able to be raised was from the INSIDE so Gerry obviously assumed the shutters had been forced up, Gerry's sister interpreted this as the shutters being jemmied.
The fact that the abductor left no incriminating evidence [though I believe there is a hair that has DNA which hasn't been identified] means nothing at all, SY came to the conclusion of abduction these people are experts in their field and have come across many abductions.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 13, 2016, 10:09:36 AM
a proper investigation must first rule in or out the parents before it can make any progress...SY must have done this to say parents are not suspects and therefore not lying...open window...evidence of abduction
....But for some reason they are unwilling to share with anyone what exactly excludes without question the possibility of the mccanns involvement in Madeleines dissappearence.
Meanwhile, owing to this continued lack of clarity, the McCanns still get trolled.
Them cops must really love Kate & Gerry.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 13, 2016, 10:23:52 AM
Please don't keep using the excuse that 'jemmied' was used by Gerry's sister, the fact is Gerry found the shutters COULD be raised from outside, the only way the shutters SHOULD HAVE been able to be raised was from the INSIDE so Gerry obviously assumed the shutters had been forced up, Gerry's sister interpreted this as the shutters being jemmied.
The fact that the abductor left no incriminating evidence [though I believe there is a hair that has DNA which hasn't been identified] means nothing at all, SY came to the conclusion of abduction these people are experts in their field and have come across many abductions.
It's about time you and your fellows spouted abductor as a fact.
It most certainly isn't.
Which experts on abduction are you referring to ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 13, 2016, 10:36:29 AM
There is no verification that the shutters or windows were moved before 10 pm.
Likewise, AS CLAIMED, the shutters were not jemmied.
There is no evidence of a break in, in the apartment.
As to SY , it is abundantly clear the investigation has achieved NOTHING.
Do keep up.
No need to be rude.
According to recent discussions on here - anything said by the family and friends about the shutters is 'hearsay' anyway - so not relevant as evidence of anything at all.
You keep forgetting that even if no evidence was recovered - that is not proof that none ever existed in the first place - but which may have been destroyed or even overlooked by some less than efficient forensic bods. Something which Amaral himself commented on re the person testing for fingerprints.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 13, 2016, 10:49:41 AM
According to recent discussions on here - anything said by the family and friends about the shutters is 'hearsay' anyway - so not relevant as evidence of anything at all.
You keep forgetting that even if no evidence was recovered - that is not proof that none ever existed in the first place - but which may have been destroyed or even overlooked by some less than efficient forensic bods. Something which Amaral himself commented on re the person testing for fingerprints.
Yet again Benice, as regarding 'lack of evidence', then that applies to accidental death.
A point I note you have never answered.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 13, 2016, 11:37:37 AM
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects” ~ DCI Andy Redwood
One concrete clue from the night Madeleine was abducted was the sighting of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of the McCann apartment and walking briskly away from it.
He had come from somewhere ... he was going somewhere. But for days the police concentrated their search on looking for a child who 'woke and wandered'.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 13, 2016, 11:39:00 AM
Or in a comfortable office reading files and going nowhere ? 8(*(
I am not a detective, nor do I pretend to be, neither are you all you can do is speculate and by the looks of it revel in your view that the investigation is going nowhere, why you find that so satisfying is beyond me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 13, 2016, 02:39:14 PM
According to recent discussions on here - anything said by the family and friends about the shutters is 'hearsay' anyway - so not relevant as evidence of anything at all.
You keep forgetting that even if no evidence was recovered - that is not proof that none ever existed in the first place - but which may have been destroyed or even overlooked by some less than efficient forensic bods. Something which Amaral himself commented on re the person testing for fingerprints.
Benice's Celestial Teapot.
Ok, I'll word it differently, seeing as though it so upset some wimp.
"You keep forgetting that even if no evidence was recovered - that is not proof that none ever existed in the first place"
"You keep forgetting that even if no evidence of the McCanns involvement in Madeleine's disappearence was recovered----that doesn't mean it wasn't them that dunnit".
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 13, 2016, 03:06:36 PM
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects” ~ DCI Andy Redwood
One concrete clue from the night Madeleine was abducted was the sighting of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of the McCann apartment and walking briskly away from it.
He had come from somewhere ... he was going somewhere. But for days the police concentrated their search on looking for a child who 'woke and wandered'.
The GNR, whose responsibility it was, searched. The PJ did other things.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 13, 2016, 03:34:39 PM
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects” ~ DCI Andy Redwood
One concrete clue from the night Madeleine was abducted was the sighting of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of the McCann apartment and walking briskly away from it.
He had come from somewhere ... he was going somewhere. But for days the police concentrated their search on looking for a child who 'woke and wandered'.
Abduction is not a fact.
Time to get over it, and your mantra of abduction.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 13, 2016, 03:36:09 PM
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects” ~ DCI Andy Redwood
One concrete clue from the night Madeleine was abducted was the sighting of a man carrying a child in the vicinity of the McCann apartment and walking briskly away from it.
He had come from somewhere ... he was going somewhere. But for days the police concentrated their search on looking for a child who 'woke and wandered'.
...and the Mccanns did their final search, the morning after Madeleine disappeared.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 13, 2016, 05:10:27 PM
(snip) ..Why, out of curiosity do you think the top ones werent opened?
Because in the PJ crime scene photo taken that night both the top cupboards near the ceiling in the parents bedroom are completely closed. If anyone had searched in them they would be open in the photo. http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/10VOLUMEXaPage2562.jpg
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 13, 2016, 10:44:17 PM
Because in the PJ crime scene photo taken that night both the top cupboards near the ceiling in the parents bedroom are completely closed. If anyone had searched in them they would be open in the photo. http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/10VOLUMEXaPage2562.jpg
Fair assumption I suppose, though it can't IMO be taken as a cert. Then again, why would any officer look in there. They were looking for a live child hiding afaiaw.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 13, 2016, 10:52:49 PM
Fair assumption I suppose, though it can't IMO be taken as a cert. Then again, why would any officer look in there. They were looking for a live child hiding afaiaw.
Search of apartment was exclusively for a child alive and awake.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 13, 2016, 11:08:23 PM
Meanwhile 8n the real world. What searching did the Mccanns do after the early morning of the 4 th May 2007 ?
They have never stopped searching for Madeleine McCann with every means at their disposal. In fact, their sheer tenacity in searching and lobbying eventually resulted in making sure the British and Portuguese authorities undertook their responsibilities towards Madeleine by reopening her case and resuming an active search for her.
Their search for Madeleine and their insistence she is not forgotten seems to be exactly the thing that some find objectionable about them. I wonder why that should be.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 13, 2016, 11:29:04 PM
They have never stopped searching for Madeleine McCann with every means at their disposal. In fact, their sheer tenacity in searching and lobbying eventually resulted in making sure the British and Portuguese authorities undertook their responsibilities towards Madeleine by reopening her case and resuming an active search for her.
Their search for Madeleine and their insistence she is not forgotten seems to be exactly the thing that some find objectionable about them. I wonder why that should be.
Because we're all heartless beasts who want the child dead, we're all 'in on it' and can't afford to have our dastardly plan uncovered or more boringly that common sense tells us that, sadly, she is almost certainly dead and, in a time of police cutbacks, the money being spent on OG could be used better elsewhere?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 13, 2016, 11:39:33 PM
"16th May ... Gerry played tennis with Seddo, David and the Mark Warner tennis coach" (KM book p139) That's lobbing not lobbying.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 13, 2016, 11:45:00 PM
Search of apartment was exclusively for a child alive and awake.
Thanks. Seems so. The problem created by your questioning here is that it leads to a strange hypothesis if there was a possiblity of a not alive or awake child being found in the top part of any wardrobe, whether by the hand of an abductor or any of the tapas group, so I can't see how it furthers much ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 14, 2016, 01:08:15 AM
You didn't need to. It's blatantly obvious. Why else would sceptics constantly refer to these photos and videos if they didn't think there was something significant about them>?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 14, 2016, 05:27:04 PM
It doesn't matter in the slightest what you think No one cares if you change your mind or not
You obviously did, as you replied to my post.
Laughing his head off, days after his beloved daughter disappeared.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 14, 2016, 06:46:40 PM
If sceptics believe Gerry was genuinely happy and carefree in the days after Madeleine disappeared, then surely it follows that they must also believe him to be some sort of psycho who didn't give a toss if Madeleine was alive or dead. Is that correct?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 14, 2016, 06:47:44 PM
Laughing his head off, days after his beloved daughter disappeared.
You are just like Amaral in his book, exaggerating and twisting.
Laughing ones head off, a laugh would last a lot longer than that, and you can see by the expression and shrug of the shoulders he was being sarcastic about someone, so you are exaggerating what is really happening to make Gerry McCann look like an uncaring father, why?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 14, 2016, 06:49:50 PM
You are just like Amaral in his book, exaggerating and twisting.
Laughing ones head off, a laugh would last a lot longer than that, and you can see by the expression and shrug of the shoulders he was being sarcastic about someone, so you are exaggerating what is really happening to make Gerry McCann look like an uncaring father, why?
As I said, so predictable.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 14, 2016, 06:52:09 PM
The mccanns last searched on the morning of the 4 th May 2007.
After that, they did no searching themselves, but did employ a succession of incompetents who found nothing.
IMO of course.
Why was it necessary for the missing child's parents to take on the duties of the State by having to hire their own detectives to carry out the search for her?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on June 14, 2016, 07:06:30 PM
This thread appears to be getting a bit heated.
Please try to be civil.
Thank you.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 14, 2016, 07:09:42 PM
Why was it necessary for the missing child's parents to take on the duties of the State by having to hire their own detectives to carry out the search for her?
She had been searched for extensively.
So no more of the myth that she wasn't, please.
Likewise, why should the UK and Portuguese taxpayers pick up the bill for the Mccanns incompetence ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 14, 2016, 08:11:42 PM
Why was it necessary for the missing child's parents to take on the duties of the State by having to hire their own detectives to carry out the search for her?
Why was it necessary to hire Control Risks Group as early as May 2007?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id376.html
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 14, 2016, 09:04:31 PM
&%+((£ Wonder if there might have been a connection ? Police scale back local searches ... missing child's desperate parents employ private detestives.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on June 14, 2016, 09:05:33 PM
&%+((£ Wonder if there might have been a connection ? Police scale back local searches ... missing child's desperate parents employ private detestives.
Did they search locally?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 14, 2016, 09:51:05 PM
&%+((£ Wonder if there might have been a connection ? Police scale back local searches ... missing child's desperate parents employ private detestives.
I don't think so, the parents never seemed to think local searches were useful because they were convinced she'd been abducted, weren't they? Kate never mentioned the searches being stopped, at any rate.
It was 11th May when IFLG came to Portugal to discuss if and how they could help. I assume the McCanns could have turned them away, so it's strange that they seem to have brought Control Risks Group with them.
There were meetings that weekend when the discussions included the possibility of being charged with neglect, the Ward of Court application which would help to overcome data protection laws when asking for records which could 'help their case' [what case; neglect?] and the setting up of the 'fighting fund'.
'Hugh' from CRG attended some of these meetings. An anonymous donor had set aside funds to hire detectives, apparently, the inference being that CRG were the ones hired. By Sunday 13th they were giving their statements to two detectives from CRG, anyway.
So on the weekend of Madeleine's birthday, ten days after her disappearance, the first detectives started work, paid for by an anonymous donor. All info from Kate's book.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 14, 2016, 10:44:53 PM
Why was it necessary to hire Control Risks Group as early as May 2007?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id376.html
" because her parents feared that Portuguese police were failing properly to search for their daughter". NOw perhaps you can explain why the parents would have hired CRG if they had hidden their daughter's body?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 14, 2016, 11:28:37 PM
I don't think so, the parents never seemed to think local searches were useful because they were convinced she'd been abducted, weren't they? Kate never mentioned the searches being stopped, at any rate.
It was 11th May when IFLG came to Portugal to discuss if and how they could help. I assume the McCanns could have turned them away, so it's strange that they seem to have brought Control Risks Group with them.
There were meetings that weekend when the discussions included the possibility of being charged with neglect, the Ward of Court application which would help to overcome data protection laws when asking for records which could 'help their case' [what case; neglect?] and the setting up of the 'fighting fund'.
'Hugh' from CRG attended some of these meetings. An anonymous donor had set aside funds to hire detectives, apparently, the inference being that CRG were the ones hired. By Sunday 13th they were giving their statements to two detectives from CRG, anyway.
So on the weekend of Madeleine's birthday, ten days after her disappearance, the first detectives started work, paid for by an anonymous donor. All info from Kate's book.
You asked why it was necessary for the Parents of a missing child to employ private detectives to look for her.
It was necessary because the police were scaling down the search for her as early as seven days after her disappearance.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 14, 2016, 11:33:14 PM
Compare that with the length of time spent by police in the UK on the hunt for April Jones and Alice Gross.
I think scaling back on the search for a missing child after seven days must be unprecedented, Alfie.
Is there no equivalent of a Public Inquiry in Portugal? Because there certainly should be. If ever the conduct of a missing child case warranted public investigation it is Madeleine McCann's case.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 15, 2016, 12:11:56 AM
I don't think so, the parents never seemed to think local searches were useful because they were convinced she'd been abducted, weren't they? Kate never mentioned the searches being stopped, at any rate.
It was 11th May when IFLG came to Portugal to discuss if and how they could help. I assume the McCanns could have turned them away, so it's strange that they seem to have brought Control Risks Group with them.
There were meetings that weekend when the discussions included the possibility of being charged with neglect, the Ward of Court application which would help to overcome data protection laws when asking for records which could 'help their case' [what case; neglect?] and the setting up of the 'fighting fund'.
'Hugh' from CRG attended some of these meetings. An anonymous donor had set aside funds to hire detectives, apparently, the inference being that CRG were the ones hired. By Sunday 13th they were giving their statements to two detectives from CRG, anyway.
So on the weekend of Madeleine's birthday, ten days after her disappearance, the first detectives started work, paid for by an anonymous donor. All info from Kate's book.
Surely by providing CRG statements the McCanns and their friends were blatantly breaking judicial secrecy.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on June 15, 2016, 12:14:32 AM
You didn't need to. It's blatantly obvious. Why else would sceptics constantly refer to these photos and videos if they didn't think there was something significant about them>?
I have no idea the motivation behind other sceptics posts. My feeling though is that his behaviour was inappropriate in the circumstances.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 15, 2016, 12:57:07 AM
Yes. Look through the glass who is the lady being spoken to? SH possibly? She bends down to pick something up off the floor to avoid responding to the joke? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2016, 02:20:46 AM
Why was it necessary for the missing child's parents to take on the duties of the State by having to hire their own detectives to carry out the search for her?
In May 2007 the parents didn't request CRG, and didn't pay for CRG. Someone else requested them and paid for them. Possibly one of those top politicians? Why else would LP happily work alongside them?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 15, 2016, 02:35:45 AM
In May 2007 the parents didn't request CRG, and didn't pay for CRG. Someone else requested them and paid for them. Possibly one of those top politicians? Why else would LP happily work alongside them?
Is it correct that the tapas group statement was taken by crg though? And whats with the plethora of politicians getting involved? I can count at least a dozen off the top of my head
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 15, 2016, 06:46:57 AM
I think scaling back on the search for a missing child after seven days must be unprecedented, Alfie.
Is there no equivalent of a Public Inquiry in Portugal? Because there certainly should be. If ever the conduct of a missing child case warranted public investigation it is Madeleine McCann's case.
. They were searching locally for a live child. They searched for seven days. It wasn't a huge area. How long should the GNR have continued to conduct local searches for a live child Brietta? Fourteen days? A month? How long?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 08:19:28 AM
. They were searching locally for a live child. They searched for seven days. It wasn't a huge area. How long should the GNR have continued to conduct local searches for a live child Brietta? Fourteen days? A month? How long?
How long did UK police search for April and Alice?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 08:24:15 AM
Yes. Look through the glass who is the lady being spoken to? SH possibly? She bends down to pick something up off the floor to avoid responding to the joke? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask
what joke was that?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 15, 2016, 08:27:51 AM
. They were searching locally for a live child. They searched for seven days. It wasn't a huge area. How long should the GNR have continued to conduct local searches for a live child Brietta? Fourteen days? A month? How long?
Out of interest why were the PJ only looking for a live child? Did it not cross their mind that an abducted child could have been murdered and her body hidden somewhere?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on June 15, 2016, 08:49:05 AM
Out of interest why were the PJ only looking for a live child? Did it not cross their mind that an abducted child could have been murdered and her body hidden somewhere?
It appears to be a case that n some eyes, whatever the PJ did was wrong.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 09:07:56 AM
It appears to be a case that n some eyes, whatever the PJ did was wrong.
That is a non-reply to my question, but thanks for your input, much appreciated as always.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 09:11:37 AM
If you think the PJ under Amaral did a good job of searching for Madeleine in the aftermath of her disappearance, then perhaps it should be added and discussed in this (rather short) thread here:
IIRC Kerry Needham was severely criticised on a bus by some stupid ignorant woman because she dared to laugh.
After his mother died - Prince William smiled at people in the crowd when he and his family returned from Scotland and were looking at all the flowers.
I smiled - and even laughed at the Wake after my husband's funeral - at the stories his friends were telling me - i.e their memories of some of the comical things they had got up to with him in their younger days, before I met him. I was grateful to have more memories to add to my own. I had a wonderful, happy marriage and was devastated for years after my lovely husband died - but if anyone had taken a video or photograph at that time - they could have made the same claim about me as some sceptics do about Gerry. I'm sure that like me - both Gerry and Kate have shed thousands of tears in private.
It's just another stick to beat the McCanns with - and a particularly cheap and spiteful one as well IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 15, 2016, 09:23:55 AM
If you think the PJ under Amaral did a good job of searching for Madeleine in the aftermath of her disappearance, then perhaps it should be added and discussed in this (rather short) thread here:
In Aprils case, they spent about 4 days looking for a live child, after that they were looking for a corpse.
Her body has never been found, so there's still hope, right.
Alice? Who the f*ck is Alice?
I had rather been wanting to fit that line in myself somewhere! [From inside the helmet?] Alice Gross was a 14 year old girl who suffered from anorexia and was murdered [so very appropriate to this discussion when you consider the similarities. A female, a minor and missing... apart from that &%+((£] Generally the cops reckon after no credible sign for 48 hours it becomes a murder hunt.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2016, 09:36:09 AM
It appears to be a case that n some eyes, whatever the PJ did was wrong.
Winding down the search for the missing child Madeleine McCann after only seven days is questionable to say the least.
I think it was wrong for that decision to be taken ... particularly as there were so many loose ends to be tied up.
For example ...
interviewing those actually resident in the building the child went missing from;
spreading the phone call investigation net further than the preferred options of Murat et al and McCann et al;
checking who might have been legitimately carrying a child in the vicinity of the apartment from which the missing child had disappeared by checking creche records of which parent was on the move carrying a child at a relevant time;
in my opinion less concentration on conducting a propaganda war against the parents of the missing child and more time given to the missing child and who may have taken her would have been more appropriate behaviour for a law enforcement agency ...
MAY 5th We would again like to appeal for any information, however small, that may lead to the safe return of Madeleine.
BILTON: First appeals are made, but what we didn't know at the time was that some Portuguese detectives are already telling Portuguese journalists that they don't believe the McCann story.
JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias' Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends. Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped. To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
The theory was in place and it was in place from the earliest stages of the inquiry. Where did that leave the official search for Madeleine?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 15, 2016, 09:42:22 AM
In Aprils case, they spent about 4 days looking for a live child, after that they were looking for a corpse.
Her body has never been found, so there's still hope, right.
Alice? Who the f*ck is Alice?
They were looking for a dead body as they had the abductor locked up, he was giving some ridiculous story about how he had ran over her in his car. Quite a bit different from Madeleine wouldn't you say.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 15, 2016, 09:42:33 AM
I had rather been wanting to fit that line in myself somewhere! [From inside the helmet?] Alice Gross was a 14 year old girl who suffered from anorexia and was murdered [so very appropriate to this discussion when you consider the similarities. A female, a minor and missing... apart from that &%+((£] Generally the cops reckon after no credible sign for 48 hours it becomes a murder hunt.
Under what circumstances did she disappear ?
and exactly how are you equating a 14 year old to one of 3 ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 09:42:59 AM
Winding down the search for the missing child Madeleine McCann after only seven days is questionable to say the least.
I think it was wrong for that decision to be taken ... particularly as there were so many loose ends to be tied up.
For example ...
interviewing those actually resident in the building the child went missing from;
spreading the phone call investigation net further than the preferred options of Murat et al and McCann et al;
checking who might have been legitimately carrying a child in the vicinity of the apartment from which the missing child had disappeared by checking creche records of which parent was on the move carrying a child at a relevant time;
in my opinion less concentration on conducting a propaganda war against the parents of the missing child and more time given to the missing child and who may have taken her would have been more appropriate behaviour for a law enforcement agency ...
MAY 5th We would again like to appeal for any information, however small, that may lead to the safe return of Madeleine.
BILTON: First appeals are made, but what we didn't know at the time was that some Portuguese detectives are already telling Portuguese journalists that they don't believe the McCann story.
JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias' Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends. Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped. To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
The theory was in place and it was in place from the earliest stages of the inquiry. Where did that leave the official search for Madeleine?
Where does 'winding down' equate to not looking ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 09:45:25 AM
They were looking for a dead body as they had the abductor locked up, he was giving some ridiculous story about how he had ran over her in his car. Quite a bit different from Madeleine wouldn't you say.
All credit to the police for spend so much time, effort and energy on a search that they knew would could only have one outcome. If anyone can give me one good reason why the PT effort could not have also involved similar effort and time I'd like to hear it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 15, 2016, 09:46:22 AM
Likewise, why should the UK and Portuguese taxpayers pick up the bill for the Mccanns incompetence ?
Why should the UK and Portuguese taxpayers pick up the bill for the McCann's incompetence, I will tell you why because a child is searched for no matter how that child disappeared, a child is a child innocent and waiting to be found.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 09:49:25 AM
Why should the UK and Portuguese taxpayers pick up the bill for the McCann's incompetence, I will tell you why because a child is searched for no matter how that child disappeared, a child is a child innocent and waiting to be found.
What a dumb question Stephen asks there. It's as dumb as asking why the UK taxpayer should pick up the bill for the search for April Jones (the biggest police search in UK history) - who else is going to search when a child like April goes missing and who should pay for that search? April's mum?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 15, 2016, 09:49:59 AM
and exactly how are you equating a 14 year old to one of 3 ?
Female, minor and missing. I thought that was considered to be "the corollary" for this around here. You are slipping Stevo. It was irony on my part 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 15, 2016, 09:51:24 AM
Why should the UK and Portuguese taxpayers pick up the bill for the McCann's incompetence, I will tell you why because a child is searched for no matter how that child disappeared, a child is a child innocent and waiting to be found.
She has been searched for extensively and nothing has been found.
You still did not answer the question.
Why should other people pay for the mccanns incompetence ?
... and they have never paid anything towards the 'search' from their own earnings as Doctors, having relied on other peoples 'donations' and revenue form a book which is also a result of their own incompetence.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 15, 2016, 09:53:36 AM
What a dumb question Stephen asks there. It's as dumb as asking why the UK taxpayer should pick up the bill for the search for April Jones (the biggest police search in UK history) - who else is going to search when a child like April goes missing and who should pay for that search? April's mum?
The mccanns are responsible for what happened to Madeleine by leaving her alone in the apartment with her siblings.
No other party has been found to have been in the apartment.
So as to dumb alf, that is the mccanns and those that defend the indefensible.
IMHO of course.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 09:59:03 AM
When for example a child is abused by her parents, who pays for the child to be taken into care, who pays for the child to receive hospital and psychiatric treatment, who pays for the parents to be investigated and prosecuted, and incarcerated?
In short who pays for the parents' vile abuse?
That's right - the taxpayer.
According to Stephen logic - why should we pay for the parents' abuse of their child?
It's a completely STUPID argument.
Who do you think should pay Stephen?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2016, 10:06:59 AM
She has been searched for extensively and nothing has been found.
You still did not answer the question.
Why should other people pay for the mccanns incompetence ?
... and they have never paid anything towards the 'search' from their own earnings as Doctors, having relied on other peoples 'donations' and revenue form a book which is also a result of their own incompetence.
The McCanns pay UK income tax and therefore not only contribute financially to the search for their daughter, but in the searches for other children who have gone missing and future searches for missing people.
As a tax payer I am happy with that ... I am less than happy if the right of a missing child to be searched for is abrogated.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 15, 2016, 10:11:10 AM
When for example a child is abused by her parents, who pays for the child to be taken into care, who pays for the child to receive hospital and psychiatric treatment, who pays for the parents to be investigated and prosecuted, and incarcerated?
In short who pays for the parents' vile abuse?
That's right - the taxpayer.
According to Stephen logic - why should we pay for the parents' abuse of their child?
It's a completely STUPID argument.
Who do you think should pay Stephen?
Off topic.
We are discussing the mccanns, who have used other peoples money to pay for their incompetence.
Never, ONE PENNY of their own, ALWAYS OTHER PEOPLES.
Are you proud of that alf.
By the way you said I was on ignore, so you have broken your word again.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 15, 2016, 10:11:49 AM
Winding down the search for the missing child Madeleine McCann after only seven days is questionable to say the least.
I think it was wrong for that decision to be taken ... particularly as there were so many loose ends to be tied up.
For example ...
interviewing those actually resident in the building the child went missing from;
spreading the phone call investigation net further than the preferred options of Murat et al and McCann et al;
checking who might have been legitimately carrying a child in the vicinity of the apartment from which the missing child had disappeared by checking creche records of which parent was on the move carrying a child at a relevant time;
in my opinion less concentration on conducting a propaganda war against the parents of the missing child and more time given to the missing child and who may have taken her would have been more appropriate behaviour for a law enforcement agency ...
MAY 5th We would again like to appeal for any information, however small, that may lead to the safe return of Madeleine.
BILTON: First appeals are made, but what we didn't know at the time was that some Portuguese detectives are already telling Portuguese journalists that they don't believe the McCann story.
JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias' Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends. Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped. To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
The theory was in place and it was in place from the earliest stages of the inquiry. Where did that leave the official search for Madeleine?
Once again you are mixing up two things. The GNR searched. Most of what you are listing above related to the PJ's responsibility, so not connected to physical searching which was scaled back..
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 15, 2016, 10:12:23 AM
The mccanns are responsible for what happened to Madeleine by leaving her alone in the apartment with her siblings.
No other party has been found to have been in the apartment.
So as to dumb alf, that is the mccanns and those that defend the indefensible.
IMHO of course.
So should April Jones parents have footed the bill for letting a five year old in the evening, or the Needham's for not keeping a close eye on a two year old?
Or maybe all parents who are neglectful to their children who then decide to leave home and live rough.
These are all children, Stephen who need to be searched for and brought home.
Left to you a huge majority of the these children would be left to their fate, because you don't want to part with any money, thank god for those who also pay taxes.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 15, 2016, 10:18:35 AM
So should April Jones parents have footed the bill for letting a five year old in the evening, or the Needham's for not keeping a close eye on a two year old?
Or maybe all parents who are neglectful to their children who then decide to leave home and live rough.
These are all children, Stephen who need to be searched for and brought home.
Left to you a huge majority of the these children would be left to their fate, because you don't want to part with any money, thank god for those who also pay taxes.
Left to me lace ?
Do you really imagine all tax payers enjoy footing the bill for the incompetence of the mccanns ?
I am giving my view.
I have no time for the mccanns, who have ruthlessly pursued Amaral and money in the courts through legal action, which says everything about them.
Madeleine has been searched for and she hasn't been found, and there is absolutely no sign that she will.
When have you searched for Madeleine ?
Have you donated to the fund ?
Or are you just another person who types about 'searching' and has yet to do anything at all, but defend the mccanns ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2016, 10:22:33 AM
Reminder: the topic is 'SEARCHING' please bear that in mind when you post. Thank you
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 15, 2016, 10:30:37 AM
Do you really imagine all tax payers enjoy footing the bill for the incompetence of the mccanns ?
I am giving my view.
I have no time for the mccanns, who have ruthlessly pursued Amaral and money in the courts through legal action, which says everything about them.
Madeleine has been searched for and she hasn't been found, and there is absolutely no sign that she will.
When have you searched for Madeleine ?
Have you donated to the fund ?
Or are you just another person who types about 'searching' and has yet to do anything at all, but defend the mccanns ?
Why just the McCann's? Why not all these other parents? Madeleine has just the same rights as all these other children that have gone missing. Why are you just picking on the McCann's?
Well, we come to the reason don't we in that sentence 'I have no time for the McCann's' there you go, it's because they sued a man for accusing them of the despicable crime of hiding their daughters body, which I am sure every parent would have done in their shoes.
As for what I have done a simple mind your own business will suffice.
Defending the McCann's? I am debating here the same as you, can I say all you want to do is defend Amaral?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 15, 2016, 10:39:22 AM
Why just the McCann's? Why not all these other parents? Madeleine has just the same rights as all these other children that have gone missing. Why are you just picking on the McCann's?
Well, we come to the reason don't we in that sentence 'I have no time for the McCann's' there you go, it's because they sued a man for accusing them of the despicable crime of hiding their daughters body, which I am sure every parent would have done in their shoes.
As for what I have done a simple mind your own business will suffice.
Defending the McCann's? I am debating here the same as you, can I say all you want to do is defend Amaral?
Tell me one crucial thing lace.
What if there never was an abduction ?
There is no forensic evidence to indicate one ever took place.
So who does the responsibility of Madeleine's disappearance fall on to ?
You will have noted, if you had read my comments, I have said Amaral made mistakes.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 15, 2016, 10:43:02 AM
It appears to be a case that n some eyes, whatever the PJ did was wrong.
Pretty much. It might be handy if one or two of these biggety types could give cites for the Portuguese judiciary in general having sat on their collective duffs doing nothing. Well something a bit more reliable than unsubstantiated assertions which become more strident by the minute. Banshees R Us ? As I recall the case stayed open for 15 months ish.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 15, 2016, 10:57:27 AM
There is no forensic evidence to indicate one ever took place.
So who does the responsibility of Madeleine's disappearance fall on to ?
You will have noted, if you had read my comments, I have said Amaral made mistakes.
Ah so, you want the police to think 'Hmm, what if there wasn't an abduction, better we don't look fpr Madeleine, she might not have been abducted'. Don't be so ridiculous.
There is no forensic evidence to say that Madeleine died in 5a either. I would rather take the view of SY than that of the dogs sorry.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 11:13:23 AM
Ah so, you want the police to think 'Hmm, what if there wasn't an abduction, better we don't look fpr Madeleine, she might not have been abducted'. Don't be so ridiculous.
There is no forensic evidence to say that Madeleine died in 5a either. I would rather take the view of SY than that of the dogs sorry.
SY has no evidence of an abduction.
No evidence of a break in to the apartment whatsoever, JUST A BELIEF, in a one sided investigation.
...and as we know, they have not found Madeleine or how she disappeared from the apartment.
So again Lace, if there was no abduction, where next ?
By the way, the dogs have no 'view'.
They responded to stimuli.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on June 15, 2016, 11:37:46 AM
Okay, so you're saying that Amaral and the PJ had no say or input into the search for Madeleine McCann?
I am saying that the GNR were responsible for the organisation of the physical search over 7 days, If you wish to know anything more it's all in the files to which I provided a link.
I have no intention of searching the files to answer questions raised by those who, it seems, can't be bothered to do their own research.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 15, 2016, 01:03:54 PM
They were looking for a dead body asthey had the abductor locked up, he was giving some ridiculous story about how he had ran over her in his car. Quite a bit different from Madeleine wouldn't you say.
Mark Bridger wasn't found guilty until 30th May 2013.
He was innocent up until that date.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 01:05:09 PM
I am saying that the GNR were responsible for the organisation of the physical search over 7 days, If you wish to know anything more it's all in the files to which I provided a link.
I have no intention of searching the files to answer questions raised by those who, it seems, can't be bothered to do their own research.
Whoever was ultimately responsible, whether it was yer man Major Luis Seqeuira, GNR Portimao or Amaral, or his boss, it was a sad state of affairs when they decided to end the search after seven days. As we have seen from similar missing children searches in this country, far more time, effort and resources are put into finding the child, either dead or alive.
By the way, thanks for the link. I can't seem to find ANY information about the PDL and surrounding territory searches conducted by the GNR. Under the heading "searches" we have the following
CASA_LILIANA PHOTOGRAPHIC REPORTS QUINTA SALSALITO SEARCHES EVELEIGH BORGAU ROMAN TUNNELS SPORTS JACKET RUCKSACK PDL 3 MAY 07
So, am I looking in the wrong place?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2016, 01:51:21 PM
(snip) ... I can't seem to find ANY information about the PDL and surrounding territory searches conducted by the GNR. ...
"The teams available and deployed by Major Seqeuira were drawn from unit of the GNR, Civil Protection, Fire Brigade, Red Cross and Urban Police. Each team numbered around 10 and between 80 to 100 personnel were involved in search activity. The searches were based on a strategy of searching in 'rescue and recovery' to locate the missing girl alive, or if dead, not as a victim of crime. This search phase lasted for 7 days from the date M McCann went missing. The search was split into 3 zones radiating out from Praia Da Luz in a northward direction. The first zone extended 3km to the EN125 road at Espiche. Within this zone, sectors were drawn using the natural boundaries that exist and included the entire village. Officers were briefed and debriefed before and after deployments and records of activity collected. Each sector was repeatedly searched on 3 separate occasions over the 7 days using officers conducting line searches and supported by air scenting dogs. The next zone 2 was extended out to a radius of 7km to the boundary of the N120 road at Bensafrim. As the sectors were larger and in order to support the line searches 2 GNR officers on motorcycles and 6 GNR officers on horse-back were deployed. These sectors were all searched on 2 separate occasions over the 7 day period. The outer zone 3 was extended to 15km at Barragem de Odiaxere a dammed lake. This zone is in a mountainous region subject to flash forest fires. Therefore Fire officers who routinely patrol and have local knowledge of the area were tasked to drive the tracks, visit empty properties to look for the missing girl. Additionally the fire brigade used a boat to visually inspect the surface water of the lake." (Source: NPIA Search Decision Support Document)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 02:00:01 PM
"The teams available and deployed by Major Seqeuira were drawn from unit of the GNR, Civil Protection, Fire Brigade, Red Cross and Urban Police. Each team numbered around 10 and between 80 to 100 personnel were involved in search activity. The searches were based on a strategy of searching in 'rescue and recovery' to locate the missing girl alive, or if dead, not as a victim of crime. This search phase lasted for 7 days from the date M McCann went missing. The search was split into 3 zones radiating out from Praia Da Luz in a northward direction. The first zone extended 3km to the EN125 road at Espiche. Within this zone, sectors were drawn using the natural boundaries that exist and included the entire village. Officers were briefed and debriefed before and after deployments and records of activity collected. Each sector was repeatedly searched on 3 separate occasions over the 7 days using officers conducting line searches and supported by air scenting dogs. The next zone 2 was extended out to a radius of 7km to the boundary of the N120 road at Bensafrim. As the sectors were larger and in order to support the line searches 2 GNR officers on motorcycles and 6 GNR officers on horse-back were deployed. These sectors were all searched on 2 separate occasions over the 7 day period. The outer zone 3 was extended to 15km at Barragem de Odiaxere a dammed lake. This zone is in a mountainous region subject to flash forest fires. Therefore Fire officers who routinely patrol and have local knowledge of the area were tasked to drive the tracks, visit empty properties to look for the missing girl. Additionally the fire brigade used a boat to visually inspect the surface water of the lake." (Source: NPIA Search Decision Support Document)
8((()*/ thanks.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2016, 02:03:11 PM
That's between 560 and 700 man-days of searching by the GNR etc.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 15, 2016, 02:32:50 PM
That's between 560 and 700 man-days of searching by the GNR etc.
Antinomy: If we believe some of the nonsense posted: Those pesky Portuguese failed to secure the borders, the most remote of which is 5 hours away. Those same pesky Portuguese failed to search under their noses (ish) for more than 7 days. &%+((£
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 02:35:00 PM
That's between 560 and 700 man-days of searching by the GNR etc.
Now compare it with the number of man hours used to look for April Jones.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 02:38:58 PM
For comparison purposes here are the facts of the police search for April Jones
INVESTIGATION FACTFILE
More than 650 areas around Machynlleth covering 60 sq km were searched An average of 16 search teams - a total of 150 officers a day - were involved, as well as 10 police dogs, 100 mountain rescuers, two RNLI vessels, kayakers and helicopter support Dyfed-Powys Police received 4,744 calls and messages from the public Of these, 2,159 needed follow ups as lines of inquiry by officers Detailed forensic examination of 27 scenes 29 child witnesses spoken to Police visited 700 homes during house-to-house inquiries 2,000 hours of CCTV evidence viewed Dyfed-Powys received help from 45 UK police forces Police took 1,018 written statements and seized 2,918 exhibits The force's Twitter following rose from 2,400 to 12,500 in a week; the website's traffic rose fivefold to 100,000 unique visitors a week The search officially ran from 1 October 2012 to 19 April 2013 Official estimates have put the bill for searching for the missing schoolgirl at £2.4m Source: Dyfed-Powys Police
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2016, 02:42:49 PM
There seems to have been lack of information sharing between the PSP ~ GNR ~ PJ.
The main searchers ... the PSP who had eight hundred personnel on the ground doing the searching ... but were not given a key suspect's efit picture which had been generated four days earlier by the PJ. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551163/Four-very-useful-leads-boost-Madeleine-hunt.html
Which ties in with Bridget O'Donnell's observation ...
"Then he pointed to the photocopied picture of Madeleine on the table. 'Is this your daughter?' he asked. 'Er, no,' we said. 'That's the girl you are meant to be searching for.'
"My heart sank for the McCanns." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1572560/Madeleine-McCann-witness-breaks-her-silence.html
At that early stage in the inquiry ... the searchers neither knew what the missing child looked like nor allegedly had they had sight of an efit of a suspect: they certainly seem to coordinate and conduct searches for missing children in an extraordinary manner back in 2007.
One can only hope they have upped the ante in the nine years since then.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 03:35:52 PM
If the facts in the above report from the BBC's website about the search for April Jones are correct then that represents just short of 30,000 man days on the search for April (if my maths is correct) compared with 560-700 man days for Madeleine.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 15, 2016, 03:48:27 PM
Now compare it with the number of man hours used to look for April Jones.
Why not compare the manhours spent on looking for April Jones with those expended looking of Christine Darby?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 15, 2016, 03:55:12 PM
I find it quite amazing that people think they are in some way qualified to judge a Police investigation carried out in another country. Their arrogance is staggering and their motives suspect in my opinion. All Police forces can be criticised, but they all do their best, particularly when children are the victims. Those who attack the Portuguese Police react with outrage if a pair from Leicester are criticised for the documented, admitted, lack of care of their children though. Double standards and very transparently so.
The legal summary, which these same people like to quote as 'clearing' the McCanns said;
Therefore, this inquiry which demonstrates the pertinent commitment of the Polícia Judiciária. the installation, in the first 24 hours of an extensive operational scheme, including the participation of several police and civil protection forces, in a total of over 130 elements; the reinforcement, in the next 24 hours of said operational scheme, with the mobilisation of over 300 members of police forces and public entities; the installation of control posts on roads and on the Southern terrestrial border with Spain; the use of sniffer dog teams; the use of exceptional search and rescue teams (aerial, terrestrial and maritime), alerts and diffusion all over the country and abroad.
In summary, it is notorious that the PJ spared no efforts in the sense of making exceptional technical, human and financial means available to find the child and to discover the truth of facts, having been completely accompanied in this effort by the Leicestershire Constabulary, the police force that is located in the city of Leicester, where most of the people in the holiday group come from. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 04:16:38 PM
I similarly find it amazing that people think they are in some way qualified to judge the behaviours and state of mind of the parents of a missing child.
But that's by the by.
Anyhow. I've drawn a valid (IMO) comparison between two searches for two missing girls - the figures speak for themselves. If anyone can give me a very good reason why one search ended after seven days, and one after 6 and a half months I'd be glad to hear it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2016, 04:33:46 PM
I find it quite amazing that people think they are in some way qualified to judge a Police investigation carried out in another country. Their arrogance is staggering and their motives suspect in my opinion. All Police forces can be criticised, but they all do their best, particularly when children are the victims. Those who attack the Portuguese Police react with outrage if a pair from Leicester are criticised for the documented, admitted, lack of care of their children though. Double standards and very transparently so.
The legal summary, which these same people like to quote as 'clearing' the McCanns said;
Therefore, this inquiry which demonstrates the pertinent commitment of the Polícia Judiciária. the installation, in the first 24 hours of an extensive operational scheme, including the participation of several police and civil protection forces, in a total of over 130 elements; the reinforcement, in the next 24 hours of said operational scheme, with the mobilisation of over 300 members of police forces and public entities; the installation of control posts on roads and on the Southern terrestrial border with Spain; the use of sniffer dog teams; the use of exceptional search and rescue teams (aerial, terrestrial and maritime), alerts and diffusion all over the country and abroad.
In summary, it is notorious that the PJ spared no efforts in the sense of making exceptional technical, human and financial means available to find the child and to discover the truth of facts, having been completely accompanied in this effort by the Leicestershire Constabulary, the police force that is located in the city of Leicester, where most of the people in the holiday group come from. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
In post #1980 of this thread you asked ... "Why was it necessary to hire Control Risks Group as early as May 2007?"
You seem to be unhappy with the answer you were given.
The fact is that it was known that only seven days after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann the police found it necessary to scale back on the search for her. That was sometime in May.
With the forces of law and order being withdrawn leaving a vacuum in the search for the missing child the employment of private investigators was the only way open to her desperate parents to keep the search for her alive. That was also in May.
One requires no law enforcement qualifications whatsoever to form an opinion on that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 05:02:41 PM
What would have happened to Shannon Matthews if police had given up searching for her after seven days?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 15, 2016, 05:08:47 PM
What would have happened to Shannon Matthews if police had given up searching for her after seven days?
Her uncle would have handed her over to the cops & split the reward money with her mum.
That.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 15, 2016, 05:26:14 PM
The story so far, always given that posters have been diligent and accurate in their abstraction of data from timesheets or the source they used was impeccable.
The British Police expended 30,000 mandays in the search for April Jones The Portuguese Police expended 700 mandays in the search for Madeleine McCann. Observation: The British police expended time in a ratio of 43:1 +/- compared with the Portuguese. Conclusion(s): ? ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on June 15, 2016, 05:27:05 PM
For comparison purposes here are the facts of the police search for April Jones
INVESTIGATION FACTFILE
More than 650 areas around Machynlleth covering 60 sq km were searched An average of 16 search teams - a total of 150 officers a day - were involved, as well as 10 police dogs, 100 mountain rescuers, two RNLI vessels, kayakers and helicopter support Dyfed-Powys Police received 4,744 calls and messages from the public Of these, 2,159 needed follow ups as lines of inquiry by officers Detailed forensic examination of 27 scenes 29 child witnesses spoken to Police visited 700 homes during house-to-house inquiries 2,000 hours of CCTV evidence viewed Dyfed-Powys received help from 45 UK police forces Police took 1,018 written statements and seized 2,918 exhibits The force's Twitter following rose from 2,400 to 12,500 in a week; the website's traffic rose fivefold to 100,000 unique visitors a week The search officially ran from 1 October 2012 to 19 April 2013 Official estimates have put the bill for searching for the missing schoolgirl at £2.4m Source: Dyfed-Powys Police
... And they still didn't find her. So difficult to suggest that more time and effort automatically means a missing person will be found.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 15, 2016, 05:32:03 PM
... And they still didn't find her. So difficult to suggest that more time and effort automatically means a missing person will be found.
Who has suggested that? But I tell you what - you're more likely to find someone or something the longer and harder you search for it. Do you not agree?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 15, 2016, 05:34:22 PM
In post #1980 of this thread you asked ... "Why was it necessary to hire Control Risks Group as early as May 2007?"
You seem to be unhappy with the answer you were given.
The fact is that it was known that only seven days after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann the police found it necessary to scale back on the search for her. That was sometime in May.
With the forces of law and order being withdrawn leaving a vacuum in the search for the missing child the employment of private investigators was the only way open to her desperate parents to keep the search for her alive. That was also in May.
One requires no law enforcement qualifications whatsoever to form an opinion on that.
When did "scaled back" become "withdrawn" ? Did the case not remain open until July 2008 ? So on what basis then are you suggesting it was a "shut up shop" at an earlier date ? A cite from some official document might be handy ( not one from the Sun or Star).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2016, 05:48:45 PM
... And they still didn't find her. So difficult to suggest that more time and effort automatically means a missing person will be found.
April's parents were at least able to bury what was found of her remains and to get some comfort from the support of their community. I cannot imagine the pain of it all, but they still have to live with coming to terms with her loss, I don't think that will ever fade..
**snip "The police didn't find April's body but following the inquest what we do have are some of her remains that we are able to bury. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-24275423
**snip The only remains that have been recovered are spots of her blood found at Bridger's cottage and tiny bone fragments discovered in his log burner that the police – and April's family – believe are pieces of her skull.
The lack of a body means that April's family will probably never know the full story of what happened to the little girl in the minutes, or hours, before she died. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/30/april-jones-murder-final-hours
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2016, 06:06:23 PM
When did "scaled back" become "withdrawn" ? Did the case not remain open until July 2008 ? So on what basis then are you suggesting it was a "shut up shop" at an earlier date ? A cite from some official document might be handy ( not one from the Sun or Star).
Are you saying the personnel withdrawn from the scale back remained part of the search for Madeleine McCann so were neither withdrawn or scaled back? How exactly does that work?
Please do not presume to dictate which sources are or are not acceptable on the forum ... the rules have already sorted that out.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 15, 2016, 07:02:46 PM
Are you saying the personnel withdrawn from the scale back remained part of the search for Madeleine McCann so were neither withdrawn or scaled back? How exactly does that work?
Please do not presume to dictate which sources are or are not acceptable on the forum ... the rules have already sorted that out.
I am sure you can work out what I meant. It isn't that difficult. I'm not presuming anything. Some sources are more reliable than others that is self evident whatever your rules or the rules on here may say.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 15, 2016, 08:45:10 PM
With the forces of law and order being withdrawn leaving a vacuum in the search for the missing child the employment of private investigators was the only way open to her desperate parents to keep the search for her alive. That was also in May.
One requires no law enforcement qualifications whatsoever to form an opinion on that.
It's an exaggeration to refer to the 'withdrawal of the forces of law and order'. The only 'withdrawal' was the scaling back of the GNR directed physical search, and CRG most certainly didn't replace them.
They interviewed some of the group again. They attended meetings with lawyers and UK Police. They checked for 'bugging' devices. They allegedly took samples from the hire car. They attended the parent's first meeting with Brian Kennedy. They arranged for hair samples to be tested.
None of that sounds like searching to me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 16, 2016, 03:03:19 PM
It's an exaggeration to refer to the 'withdrawal of the forces of law and order'. The only 'withdrawal' was the scaling back of the GNR directed physical search, and CRG most certainly didn't replace them.
They interviewed some of the group again. They attended meetings with lawyers and UK Police. They checked for 'bugging' devices. They allegedly took samples from the hire car. They attended the parent's first meeting with Brian Kennedy. They arranged for hair samples to be tested.
None of that sounds like searching to me.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 17, 2016, 03:11:05 PM
This is worth a re-read:
"Kate, 43, told The Sun yesterday: “I hope Mr Cameron will take responsibility for one of his most vulnerable citizens".
Well maybe, just maybe Kate Mccann should have thought about what she said, and what she and her husband did in 2007.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 17, 2016, 05:43:37 PM
In fact, NO law enforcement agency is now actively searching for Madeleine. The family’s own investigators are still working, but they do not have access to masses of material held by police authorities.
There has been no formal review of the inquiry — a process which could unearth a key piece of the jigsaw. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/539087/open-up-the-maddie-files/
I don't quite understand why Madeleine McCann's parents have been accused by some of "not searching" for their daughter; particularly as searching for her has been their raison d'être for over nine years.
They have been in the fortunate situation of being able to pay for their own investigators to keep the search for Madeleine going; an endeavour which has attracted different degrees of censure dependent on which website it may be posted on.
The incredible achievement of having Madeleine's case reopened and the official bodies with access to all the available information on the case to have taken up the reins of actually trying to find out what happened to her and where she is ... is something which seems to meet with the disapproval of some.
Madeleine McCann like any other missing child has the right to be looked for. Her parents deserved support in lobbying for that ... not opprobrium.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on June 17, 2016, 06:53:01 PM
In fact, NO law enforcement agency is now actively searching for Madeleine. The family’s own investigators are still working, but they do not have access to masses of material held by police authorities.
There has been no formal review of the inquiry — a process which could unearth a key piece of the jigsaw. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/539087/open-up-the-maddie-files/
I don't quite understand why Madeleine McCann's parents have been accused by some of "not searching" for their daughter; particularly as searching for her has been their raison d'être for over nine years.
They have been in the fortunate situation of being able to pay for their own investigators to keep the search for Madeleine going; an endeavour which has attracted different degrees of censure dependent on which website it may be posted on.
The incredible achievement of having Madeleine's case reopened and the official bodies with access to all the available information on the case to have taken up the reins of actually trying to find out what happened to her and where she is ... is something which seems to meet with the disapproval of some.
Madeleine McCann like any other missing child has the right to be looked for. Her parents deserved support in lobbying for that ... not opprobrium.
I think the simple answer is that they have made no effort to go back to the Algarve in the last seven years and take part in any incentive or activity which could rightly be called searching. The Needham's could show them how to do it and they didn't have £ millions to squander on crooked detectives.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 17, 2016, 07:09:18 PM
I think the simple answer is that they have made no effort to go back to the Algarve in the last seven years and take part in any incentive or activity which could rightly be called searching. The Needham's could show them how to do it and they didn't have £ millions to squander on crooked detectives.
Big difference The Needhams are welcome on Kos It seems the McCanns are hated in the algarve The McCanns thought the professionals would do a better job The McCanns have managed to get the Met involved That's quite an achievement I don't think any searching the McCanns could do would make any difference
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 17, 2016, 07:14:34 PM
Big difference The Needhams are welcome on Kos It seems the McCanns are hated in the algarve The McCanns thought the professionals would do a better job The McCanns have managed to get the Met involved That's quite an achievement I don't think any searching the McCanns could do would make any difference
I think the Needhams probably have the McCanns to thank indirectly for the fact that UK police are involved in looking for Ben. One wonders if that would be the case had there not been such a concerted effort on the part of the McCanns to get UK police involved in looking for a missing child abroad.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 17, 2016, 07:46:28 PM
Big difference The Needhams are welcome on Kos It seems the McCanns are hated in the algarve The McCanns thought the professionals would do a better job The McCanns have managed to get the Met involved That's quite an achievement I don't think any searching the McCanns could do would make any difference
The whole Algarve hates the McCanns? Quite an achievement.
They thought the professionals would do a better job? Only one professional body was on the case, the PJ. After that there were various PI's with no professional qualifications or history in finding missing people as far as I know.
David Cameron and Theresa May got the Met involved on the McCann's behalf, and Theresa May didn't seem keen. Rebekah Brooks hit on a way to 'persuade' Cameron, allegedly.
It seems the McCanns agree with you - no searching they could do would make a difference. Perhaps you should point out to Kerry Needham that her searching is unlikely to make a difference either. Somehow I don't think she would take any notice. Judging by her track record she will search, by herself if she has to, to her dying day.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on June 17, 2016, 07:57:53 PM
Big difference The Needhams are welcome on Kos It seems the McCanns are hated in the algarve The McCanns thought the professionals would do a better job The McCanns have managed to get the Met involved That's quite an achievement I don't think any searching the McCanns could do would make any difference
We'll never know now one way or the other.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on June 17, 2016, 08:09:17 PM
Big difference The Needhams are welcome on Kos It seems the McCanns are hated in the algarve The McCanns thought the professionals would do a better job The McCanns have managed to get the Met involved That's quite an achievement I don't think any searching the McCanns could do would make any difference
The McCanns by their own actions are wholly responsible for the way they are now viewed by the Portuguese people. The Portuguese are very protective over their children so cannot understand the mentality of parents who would go out on the piss leaving three young children alone and vulnerable. I must say I agree with them.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 17, 2016, 08:14:03 PM
I think the Needhams probably have the McCanns to thank indirectly for the fact that UK police are involved in looking for Ben. One wonders if that would be the case had there not been such a concerted effort on the part of the McCanns to get UK police involved in looking for a missing child abroad.
Kerry Needham is the one who got the Met to look for Ben. Maybe if they hadn't spent over £10 million on a wild goose chase looking for someone to prosecute in the McCann case there might have been money to look for Ben long ago.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 17, 2016, 11:31:16 PM
In fact, NO law enforcement agency is now actively searching for Madeleine. The family’s own investigators are still working, but they do not have access to masses of material held by police authorities.
There has been no formal review of the inquiry — a process which could unearth a key piece of the jigsaw. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/539087/open-up-the-maddie-files/
I don't quite understand why Madeleine McCann's parents have been accused by some of "not searching" for their daughter; particularly as searching for her has been their raison d'être for over nine years.
They have been in the fortunate situation of being able to pay for their own investigators to keep the search for Madeleine going; an endeavour which has attracted different degrees of censure dependent on which website it may be posted on.
The incredible achievement of having Madeleine's case reopened and the official bodies with access to all the available information on the case to have taken up the reins of actually trying to find out what happened to her and where she is ... is something which seems to meet with the disapproval of some.
Madeleine McCann like any other missing child has the right to be looked for. Her parents deserved support in lobbying for that ... not opprobrium.
You are posting from a certain position one you have no idea is right or wrong Regarding the right to be looked for, it doesnt extend to forever The gnr and pj looked The pis looked The sy looked Who else is going to look now? Stop blaming and apportioning responsibility to thise that have already tried, unless youre a billionaire and want to chip in for kingdom come
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 18, 2016, 02:18:30 PM
Kerry Needham is the one who got the Met to look for Ben. Maybe if they hadn't spent over £10 million on a wild goose chase looking for someone to prosecute in the McCann case there might have been money to look for Ben long ago.
The fact that the Met were already looking into Madeleine's disappearance would have made it much more difficult for them to refuse Kerry's request - that is what I meant.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on June 18, 2016, 02:45:07 PM
Back on topic.
The subject of searching for Maddie is a curious one. I would have thought that the parents of any missing child would have spent every free moment in the area from where she or he disappeared. Not the McCanns though and that is extremely puzzling unless...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 03:03:32 PM
The subject of searching for Maddie is a curious one. I would have thought that the parents of any missing child would have spent every free moment in the area from where she or he disappeared. Not the McCanns though and that is extremely puzzling unless...
not really
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Benice on June 18, 2016, 03:30:48 PM
The subject of searching for Maddie is a curious one. I would have thought that the parents of any missing child would have spent every free moment in the area from where she or he disappeared. Not the McCanns though and that is extremely puzzling unless...
I can just imagine the comments:-
'What are those selfish pair thinking of - leaving the twins at home and jetting off to Portugal every free moment they get. That's neglect.' Or - 'what are that selfish pair thinking of dragging the twins around Portugal with them every free moment they get - that can't be good for them. That's neglect'.
And of course the inevitable - 'What a waste of fund money'.
Actually it really would be a waste of money as the expert advice is that keeping a missing child's profile as high as possible for as long as possible in the public eye is the best way to give a missing person the best chance of being found.
When you consider the tiny amount of ground in PT that actual physical searching by the parents could cover - it is obviously the least productive and financially the most wasteful method of searching there is. Especially as the biggest search in the history of Portugal has already taken place.
IMO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 18, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
The subject of searching for Maddie is a curious one. I would have thought that the parents of any missing child would have spent every free moment in the area from where she or he disappeared. Not the McCanns though and that is extremely puzzling unless...
Unless what?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alfie on June 18, 2016, 05:38:57 PM
The subject of searching for Maddie is a curious one. I would have thought that the parents of any missing child would have spent every free moment in the area from where she or he disappeared. Not the McCanns though and that is extremely puzzling unless...
Your child has gone missing in PdL - where do you physically search 1) 1 hour after the disappearance 2) 12 hours after the disappearance 3) One day after the disappearance 4) One week after the disappearance 5) One month after the disappearance 6) One year after the disappearance 7) 10 years after the disappearance
Talk us through what you would do, where you would look and how you would achieve this search. This might help formulate a basic guide for parents of missing children in the future.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 18, 2016, 06:21:22 PM
Your child has gone missing in PdL - where do you physically search 1) 1 hour after the disappearance 2) 12 hours after the disappearance 3) One day after the disappearance 4) One week after the disappearance 5) One month after the disappearance 6) One year after the disappearance 7) 10 years after the disappearance
Talk us through what you would do, where you would look and how you would achieve this search. This might help formulate a basic guide for parents of missing children in the future.
Why just PDL.
If your child is missing.
You search.
End of.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 18, 2016, 06:33:11 PM
'What are those selfish pair thinking of - leaving the twins at home and jetting off to Portugal every free moment they get. That's neglect.' Or - 'what are that selfish pair thinking of dragging the twins around Portugal with them every free moment they get - that can't be good for them. That's neglect'.
And of course the inevitable - 'What a waste of fund money'.
Actually it really would be a waste of money as the expert advice is that keeping a missing child's profile as high as possible for as long as possible in the public eye is the best way to give a missing person the best chance of being found.
When you consider the tiny amount of ground in PT that actual physical searching by the parents could cover - it is obviously the least productive and financially the most wasteful method of searching there is. Especially as the biggest search in the history of Portugal has already taken place.
IMO
We are told Kate believes Madeleine never left Portugal so why aren't she, her husband and their supporters out there putting up posters, raising awareness? Their Portuguese Facebook page is also a virtual wasteland with no awareness raising activity of any kind. Couldn't that page be used more effectively ?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 18, 2016, 07:27:59 PM
Cites for people leaving three under 4's in an unlocked apartment 5 nights on the trot?
Much better not to leave your children alone in the first place, so they can't disappear. # that was stephens post...there is plenty of evidence to support my post that many have done it..
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 18, 2016, 07:40:03 PM
Much better not to leave your children alone in the first place, so they can't disappear. # that was stephens post...there is plenty of evidence to support my post that many have done it..
we have at least two posters on here out of about 30 who have dunit...perhaps stephen could extrapolate that to the general population to see what the statistics say
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 18, 2016, 08:03:54 PM
we have at least two posters on here out of about 30 who have dunit...perhaps stephen could extrapolate that to the general population to see what the statistics say
He's a bloody clever man if he can from that info. The basic data seems to be somewhat wanting.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 08:06:37 PM
Perhaps Dave might consider a Binomial Distribution.
Once he sorts out the sample size and how many of those two actually really did what they say they did. &%+((£
A binomial distribution has two parameters.......this case has one ...would you leave your children ...yes or no so a binomial distribution would not apply in this case....thought you would know that
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 18, 2016, 09:41:26 PM
It is a statistical test based on two outcomes, in this case people are leaving or not leaving children in unlocked accommodation.
Together with a fixed number of trials.
You should know that already, as well as the alternatives.
a binomial distribution is a graph and is plotted...it requires two variables to plot a graph
do not lecture me about statistics when you do not realise a binomial has two variables that can be plotted as a graph to give the representative bell shape...
as regards how many people have left children in a baby listening enviroment...that cannot be plotted as a graph as there is only one variable
looks like stephen has screwed up statistically speaking
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 10:11:03 PM
As I remember Carly's parents left her in a hotel room...so we are now up to three in this relatively small sample
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 18, 2016, 10:29:56 PM
a binomial distribution is a graph and is plotted...it requires two variables to plot a graph
do not lecture me about statistics when you do not realise a binomial has two variables that can be plotted as a graph to give the representative bell shape...
as regards how many people have left children in a baby listening enviroment...that cannot be plotted as a graph as there is only one variable
looks like stephen has screwed up statistically speaking
You still don't understand.
2 events , success or failure .
In this case leaving or not leaving children in unlocked accommodation.
Stephen has not screwed up.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 10:32:19 PM
you dont and anyone reading this who understands statistics will know...a BD requires two varaibles...here we only have one...you could plot the age of the parents against the number of parents who left children....that would give you a graph and probably a BD...but then you would have two variables .....age and number
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 10:39:48 PM
sil is watching and has claimed to understand statistics so perhaps she might wish to support you...and alice too
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 18, 2016, 10:40:42 PM
Anyone care to explain what form of searching binomial distribution is? Thanks in anticipation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 10:44:41 PM
Why not give the full relevant info on forum members first? For when I said 'twas wanting 'twas that to which I referred.
seems stephen wants to distract by talking rubbish about statistics.
poster want to pretend that leaving children ala babysitting is very,,,very unusual...there are no official figures so this claim cannot be substantiated but anectdotaly a lot of poeple seem to have done it
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 18, 2016, 10:56:14 PM
seems stephen wants to distract by talking rubbish about statistics.
poster want to pretend that leaving children ala babysitting is very,,,very unusual...there are no official figures so this claim cannot be substantiated but anectdotaly a lot of poeple seem to have done it
"Anedtodally" of course, aka Benices hundreds if thousands and even millions. From all the message boards available to google on this subject from people who stayed or actually used the service if you bother to research, most did not or felt uncomfortable all the time if they did or thought it was appalling. Sounds realistic enough.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 10:57:39 PM
"Anedtodally" of course, aka Benices hundreds if thousands and even millions. From all the message boards available to google on this subject from people who stayed or actually used the service if you bother to research, most did not or felt uncomfortable all the time if they did or thought it was appalling. Sounds realistic enough.
three families out of about 30 on this forum have done it...thats quite alot
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 18, 2016, 11:01:42 PM
three families out of about 30 on this forum have done it...thats quite alot
Qute alot of rubbish, I agree
And a totally irrelevant post as I was talking about all the alledged worldwide populace that have partaken or not as the case seems in leaving their most precious at risk
Eta out of interest who are the three here who have used a baby listening service, first Ive read about it, be good to get their feedback
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 11:04:58 PM
And a totally irrelevant post as I was talking about all the alledged worldwide populace that have partaken or not as the case seems in leaving their most precious at risk
#so you have been reading message boards from all over the world ...you must speak a lot of languages...somehow I think you are mistaken
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 18, 2016, 11:09:04 PM
#so you have been reading message boards from all over the world ...you must speak a lot of languages...somehow I think you are mistaken
I only read boards in english And its ok if your thoughts are mistaken Would you like to tackle the actual points made in answer to your posts or just deflect and scurry? Your choice
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 11:10:25 PM
I only read boards in english And its ok if your thoughts are mistaken Would you like to tackle the actual points made in answer to your posts or just deflect and scurry? Your choice
if you only read boards in english then you you are not considering the whole worlds populace
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 18, 2016, 11:16:22 PM
the forum is not a representative sample...i would say most of us are white british so the forum is not representative of the uk
i would say that "most" of us are above average intelligence so again not representative and 30 is far to small to be a sample...but surprisingly 3 out of 30 families here have left children...thats a lot
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on June 18, 2016, 11:26:11 PM
the forum is not a representative sample...i would say most of us are white british so the forum is not representative of the uk
i would say that "most" of us are above average intelligence so again not representative and 30 is far to small to be a sample...but surprisingly 3 out of 30 families here have left children...thats a lot
I agree, not representative as the three are supporters.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 18, 2016, 11:29:52 PM
"Anedtodally" of course, aka Benices hundreds if thousands and even millions. From all the message boards available to google on this subject from people who stayed or actually used the service if you bother to research, most did not or felt uncomfortable all the time if they did or thought it was appalling. Sounds realistic enough.
Parents have been leaving their children asleep and using the the Listening service for 60 years or more. If it wasn't a popular service it would have died out years ago. It's only there because there is a demand for it by parents. Then there are caravanners and campers,who use the site clubs and neighbours who hold parties - which also involves leaving the kids asleep and nipping back to check on them. Trying to pretend otherwise is unrealistic. imo.
The reason why sceptics want to play it down is because they can't accuse the McCanns of neglect etc without also accusing all those hundreds of thousands ( probably millions by now after so many years) of other parents of doing the same.
IMO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 18, 2016, 11:51:55 PM
Parents have been leaving their children asleep and using the the Listening service for 60 years or more. If it wasn't a popular service it would have died out years ago. It's only there because there is a demand for it by parents. Then there are caravanners and campers,who use the site clubs and neighbours who hold parties - which also involves leaving the kids asleep and nipping back to check on them. Trying to pretend otherwise is unrealistic. imo.
The reason why sceptics want to play it down is because they can't accuse the McCanns of neglect etc without also accusing all those hundreds of thousands ( probably millions by now after so many years) of other parents of doing the same.
IMO
There is no evidence hundreds of thousands used it, so do cite, and your thnking many did and thats why it was on offer doesnt count, I already posted that many on message boards said it was on offer but they didnt use it or if they did felt uncomfortable doing so as they would not be able to relax and enjoy their evening...well, obviously, and Im sure the tapas group couldnt relax either when one or other were up every 5 mins playing musical chairs
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 18, 2016, 11:53:57 PM
The problem with audio baby monitors is that choking can be silent.
I agree. Doesn't make any difference if you're on the premises or not in that sort of sad circumstance. Presumably, The Paris Parents did not see that as a risk.
I was more interested in the comment made by the father that there are different types of parenting.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 19, 2016, 12:10:32 AM
If a person did search behind the sofa, that person then pushed it against the wall afterwards (compulsive tidyness obsession?) and then completely forgot to mention this in their statement (sofamnesia?). Both are very odd things to do.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 19, 2016, 12:22:03 AM
If a person did search behind the sofa, that person then pushed it against the wall afterwards (compulsive tidyness obsession?) and then completely forgot to mention this in their statement (sofamnesia?). Both are very odd things to do.
I don't think for one minute all searchers were asked to describe each & every place they looked for a concealed Madeleine, judging by statement content. Wherever each searcher looked, they didn't see her so was it worthy of reporting? Did a lightweight sofa slide easily across the floor? In the same manner, it is clear that Madeleine's every move was not reported by the parents, friends or nannies for that particular week - e.g. did she ever go inside the Batista supermarket or walk to the Post Office with either parent to send postcards?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 19, 2016, 12:36:18 AM
Imagine you are urgently searching for a missing child. Everyone else is searching outside. You have a desperate search inside - and you search between a sofa and a wall. Imagine you find nothing there. Would you then take time off from your urgent search to push the sofa against the wall?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on June 19, 2016, 12:37:40 AM
Imagine you are urgently searching for a missing child. Everyone else is searching outside. You have a desperate search inside - and you search between a sofa and a wall. Imagine you find nothing there. Would you then take time off from your urgent search to push the sofa against the wall?
No
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 19, 2016, 12:41:27 AM
Imagine you are urgently searching for a missing child. Everyone else is searching outside. You have a desperate search inside - and you search between a sofa and a wall. Imagine you find nothing there. Would you then take time off from your urgent search to push the sofa against the wall?
The sofa could have been moved on more than one occasion, Pegasus, and pushed back against the wall. Certainly the curtains behind it show signs of disturbance in the CSI photos. All we do know is that what was photographed that night is not a true reflection of the scene at the time KM entered the apartment at 10pm.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 19, 2016, 12:44:35 AM
I don't think for one minute all searchers were asked to describe each & every place they looked for a concealed Madeleine, judging by statement content. Wherever each searcher looked, they didn't see her so was it worthy of reporting? Did a lightweight sofa slide easily across the floor? In the same manner, it is clear that Madeleine's every move was not reported by the parents, friends or nannies for that particular week - e.g. did she ever go inside the Batista supermarket or walk to the Post Office with either parent to send postcards?
Yes but in the crime scene photo the sofa is pushed back so tight against the wall that it clamps the curtains so they can't be operated. Can you describe step by step the search behind that sofa, so you end up with the sofa fully against the wall?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 19, 2016, 12:53:41 AM
Yes but in the crime scene photo the sofa is pushed back so tight against the wall that it clamps the curtains so they can't be operated. Can you describe step by step the search behind that sofa, so you end up with the sofa fully against the wall?
I can no more describe it than I can the precise methodology used by KM to look out the children's bedroom window & leave unblemished prints on the glass, her search of the wardrobes in the children's room or the opening & closing of the cupboards in the kitchen. Can you?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 19, 2016, 02:08:10 AM
I can no more describe it than I can the precise methodology used by KM to look out the children's bedroom window & leave unblemished prints on the glass, her search of the wardrobes in the children's room or the opening & closing of the cupboards in the kitchen. Can you?
Shame her finger prints were the only evidence found on the alleged open window. Actually that one known fact should be fascinating to every detective that has worked on this case.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 19, 2016, 02:53:33 AM
Shame her finger prints were the only evidence found on the alleged open window. Actually that one known fact should be fascinating to every detective that has worked on this case.
I am curious as to how her hand, when pressed against the window, was not against the net curtain. How far had the net curtain been pushed back and how was that done from the outside?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 19, 2016, 03:04:39 AM
I am curious as to how her hand, when pressed against the window, was not against the net curtain. How far had the net curtain been pushed back and how was that done from the outside?
I think she might have lifted the net out of the way to allow her to lean and look out of the window. Move the net ~ then lean forward with hand on the glass for support?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: carlymichelle on June 19, 2016, 08:41:17 AM
NM
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 19, 2016, 10:46:00 AM
I am curious as to how her hand, when pressed against the window, was not against the net curtain. How far had the net curtain been pushed back and how was that done from the outside?
Tks... you are forgetting the whooshing thingy - curtains are blowing everywhere and...the window is open and the shutters jemmied and.. oh wait, the window was already open- very wide for the 'abductior' and Maddie to climb out-without leaving a mark yet there is oor kate leaving prints all over the bloody thing...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on June 19, 2016, 06:18:07 PM
Tks... you are forgetting the whooshing thingy - curtains are blowing everywhere and...the window is open and the shutters jemmied and.. oh wait, the window was already open- very wide for the 'abductior' and Maddie to climb out-without leaving a mark yet there is oor kate leaving prints all over the bloody thing...
What a vivid imagination you have Mistaken.
1) The curtains whooshed with one gust of wind only as far as we know.
2) The word jemmied was used by a third person IIRC
3) The window was open - very wide - for the abductor. How wide? I wasn't aware that we had been told this.
4) There is our Kate leaving prints all over the bloody thing ? I wasn't aware that Kate had left prints all over the thing. In fact the only prints on the actual window were very few, in one place indicating that she had only having touched it once ... as is most likely she did.
5) Has everyone forgotten the prints on the outside of the shutters ? The ones at the bottom around the knob sort of thing? The prints that Shining so brilliantly noticed and analysed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 19, 2016, 06:47:46 PM
1) The curtains whooshed with one gust of wind only as far as we know.
2) The word jemmied was used by a third person IIRC
3) The window was open - very wide - for the abductor. How wide? I wasn't aware that we had been told this.
4) There is our Kate leaving prints all over the bloody thing ? I wasn't aware that Kate had left prints all over the thing. In fact the only prints on the actual window were very few, in one place indicating that she had only having touched it once ... as is most likely she did.
5) Has everyone forgotten the prints on the outside of the shutters ? The ones at the bottom around the knob sort of thing? The prints that Shining so brilliantly noticed and analysed.
The source of the jemmied is the McCann's.
No proof of abduction Sadie, do keep up.
You say 'our Kate'. Not on your Nellie.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 19, 2016, 07:58:06 PM
1) The curtains whooshed with one gust of wind only as far as we know.
2) The word jemmied was used by a third person IIRC
3) The window was open - very wide - for the abductor. How wide? I wasn't aware that we had been told this.
4) There is our Kate leaving prints all over the bloody thing ? I wasn't aware that Kate had left prints all over the thing. In fact the only prints on the actual window were very few, in one place indicating that she had only having touched it once ... as is most likely she did.
5) Has everyone forgotten the prints on the outside of the shutters ? The ones at the bottom around the knob sort of thing? The prints that Shining so brilliantly noticed and analysed.
you mean the prints by the staff who were called to look at them one of the days? analysed hahaha Ok
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 19, 2016, 08:06:50 PM
1) The curtains whooshed with one gust of wind only as far as we know.
2) The word jemmied was used by a third person IIRC
3) The window was open - very wide - for the abductor. How wide? I wasn't aware that we had been told this.
4) There is our Kate leaving prints all over the bloody thing ? I wasn't aware that Kate had left prints all over the thing. In fact the only prints on the actual window were very few, in one place indicating that she had only having touched it once ... as is most likely she did.
5) Has everyone forgotten the prints on the outside of the shutters ? The ones at the bottom around the knob sort of thing? The prints that Shining so brilliantly noticed and analysed.
Oh Sadie the vivid imaginings is all the McCanns. just the one gust huh... so Kate had to go and interfere with evidence/if any were left which we know there wasn't.. by looking out the window why? Did she think the burglar took Maddie out of the window? we don't know- did she want everyone to believe Maddie was taken out of the window - YES!!
Gerry told his sister to went on TV making the claim about shutters being jemmied
We haven't been told how wide the window was open because Kate didn't mention that wee bit. The olice did ask her to describe in detail the room when she entered it- she refused to answer that. Infact Kate recalled the door was at a different angle but didn't;t notice how wide the window was . what a bummer.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on June 19, 2016, 11:42:09 PM
Oh Sadie the vivid imaginings is all the McCanns. just the one gust huh... so Kate had to go and interfere with evidence/if any were left which we know there wasn't.. by looking out the window why? Did she think the burglar took Maddie out of the window? we don't know- did she want everyone to believe Maddie was taken out of the window - YES!!
Gerry told his sister to went on TV making the claim about shutters being jemmied
We haven't been told how wide the window was open because Kate didn't mention that wee bit. The olice did ask her to describe in detail the room when she entered it- she refused to answer that. Infact Kate recalled the door was at a different angle but didn't;t notice how wide the window was . what a bummer.
What a sad perspective you guys have on the case.
It would surprise me greatly if Kate did not have a quick look out of the window, and try it.
Tbh, it never fails to amaze me that there were no other finger prints on the window. The natural reaction of everyone searching would have been to go over to that partially open window and look out ... and to try and see how easily it slides = finger prints
It is almost to "good to be true" that Kates finger prints were the only ones on the window.
And what about the handprint on the bit at the bottom of the shutter that Shining so brilliantly found and analysed. Have you forgotten that ? Could have been the abductors, or could have been one of the people who tried the shutters ... we don't know, but we do know that at least two, or was it three people, tried the shutter outside.
Presumably the PJ tested this hand print? Presumably they compared to Gerry and the other tapas person/s who tried the shutters
It beggars belief that none of the people who tried the shutters, didn't bother to try the window. In fact I don't believe that. So where were their finger prints?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 19, 2016, 11:54:30 PM
It would surprise me greatly if Kate did not have a quick look out of the window, and try it.
Tbh, it never fails to amaze me that there were no other finger prints on the window. The natural reaction of everyone searching would have been to go over to that partially open window and look out ... and to try and see how easily it slides = finger prints
It is almost to "good to be true" that Kates finger prints were the only ones on the window.
And what about the handprint on the bit at the bottom of the shutter that Shining so brilliantly found and analysed. Have you forgotten that ? Could have been the abductors, or could have been one of the people who tried the shutters ... we don't know, but we do know that at least two, or was it three people, tried the shutter outside.
Presumably the PJ tested this hand print? Presumably they compared to Gerry and the other tapas person/s who tried the shutters
It beggars belief that none of the people who tried the shutters, didn't bother to try the window. In fact I don't believe that. So where were their finger prints?
There would appear to be two possibilities. No one touched the windows except KM. The multitude came, touched the windows leaving dabs all over the oche then some person wiped all prints off except KM's. The latter would seem to require intervention by the omnipresent.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on June 20, 2016, 12:01:01 AM
I am using Mistakens actual words. She said 'our Kate' . Do keep up Stephen
The implication from what Mistaken said, is that Kate or Gerry said 'jemmied'. I believe it was one of the family that first said it; now was it Philomena?
Seems it was no more than a case of 'Chinese Whispers'. With a myth being blown up and pushed by some to pretend that Kate or Gerry originally used the word. Just a third party interpretation from over the seas of what happened
For any validity it had to have been said originally by Kate or Gerry ... and that wasn't the case.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on June 20, 2016, 12:07:51 AM
There would appear to be two possibilities. No one touched the windows except KM. The multitude came, touched the windows leaving dabs all over the oche then some person wiped all prints off except KM's. The latter would seem to require intervention by the omnipresent.
Maybe by someone who thought he was the omnipresent, but I ain't going to make any suggestions.
My bet is that a number on here could make a suggestion, but I doubt they will.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 20, 2016, 12:13:45 AM
I think she might have lifted the net out of the way to allow her to lean and look out of the window. Move the net ~ then lean forward with hand on the glass for support?
If the net was fully extended across the window, it would only be possible for KM's complete prints to be on the glass pane if she first lifted the net & placed it over her head. Otherwise, her left hand would be used to hold the curtain away from the window to facilitate leaning out & looking. Important to remember the window slides across rather than opening out. On the other hand, if the net had been retracted as was suggested, it must have been pushed back to the left (as viewed from the inside) quite a long way so Kate could freely place her hand on the glass without entrapping any part of the net under her fingers. How was the net pushed back that far from outside the window, from ground level, with such ease? The nets at the other windows appear to be at least 2.5x if not 3x window width - bulky & difficult to push very far quickly or easily. Did Kate kneel on the bed or climb across & stand in the small gap between the foot of the bed & the chair to look out the window? The r/h curtain tie-back was pictured on the floor under the window - how did that get there & what happened about forensics on it? IMO the window was opened by someone inside the bedroom, not by a burglar outside the room.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 20, 2016, 12:31:43 AM
If the net was fully extended across the window, it would only be possible for KM's complete prints to be on the glass pane if she first lifted the net & placed it over her head.(snip)
There were two net curtains http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMJ_QdDWoAEEqAb.jpg
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 20, 2016, 12:32:28 AM
If the net was fully extended across the window, it would only be possible for KM's complete prints to be on the glass pane if she first lifted the net & placed it over her head. Otherwise, her left hand would be used to hold the curtain away from the window to facilitate leaning out & looking. Important to remember the window slides across rather than opening out. On the other hand, if the net had been retracted as was suggested, it must have been pushed back to the left (as viewed from the inside) quite a long way so Kate could freely place her hand on the glass without entrapping any part of the net under her fingers. How was the net pushed back that far from outside the window, from ground level, with such ease? The nets at the other windows appear to be at least 2.5x if not 3x window width - bulky & difficult to push very far quickly or easily. Did Kate kneel on the bed or climb across & stand in the small gap between the foot of the bed & the chair to look out the window? The r/h curtain tie-back was pictured on the floor under the window - how did that get there & what happened about forensics on it? IMO the window was opened by someone inside the bedroom, not by a burglar outside the room.
I also think that the window was opened from the inside. Your thoughts on the arrangement of the net would indicate someone wanted no impediment either to hasty exit or to passing Madeleine through once she had been picked up from the bed where she had been placed on top of the covers.
I think the gender of the checker played a part here. The father looked fondly at the (perhaps) sleeping child; in my opinion the mother would have entered the room to place her under the covers: an intruder in the room, had there been one, would have been seen. Precipitating who knows what even greater tragedy than the one which happened.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 20, 2016, 12:34:08 AM
Do you have the exact date & source of that photo, please?
I'll try to find the source for you Misty. And here is another photo which proves there were two net curtains, you can see the right one http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foto9.jpg Source: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html foto9
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 20, 2016, 01:16:33 AM
Another photo proving two net curtains http://www.allmystery.de/i/te4d637_333205_App-window-4.jpg
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 20, 2016, 01:20:52 AM
I'll try to find the source for you Misty. And here is another photo which proves there were two net curtains, you can see the right one http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foto9.jpg Source: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html foto9
Thanks, Pegasus. One curtain or two - do you see what I'm driving at regarding uninterrupted prints on the pane if the window was fully open? Why would someone from outside push the net any further back than they needed to?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 20, 2016, 01:33:10 AM
Another photo proving two net curtains http://www.allmystery.de/i/te4d637_333205_App-window-4.jpg
Not a crime scene photo, Pegasus, unless Moita Flores had unrestricted access at the time. No date on photo = presume it came from CdM docu? Surely the original net curtains would have been bagged up & taken away? It's strange that that bedroom seems to have the only window with a double net.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 20, 2016, 01:58:56 AM
Not a crime scene photo, Pegasus, unless Moita Flores had unrestricted access at the time. No date on photo = presume it came from CdM docu? Surely the original net curtains would have been bagged up & taken away? It's strange that that bedroom seems to have the only window with a double net.
That is a press photo of Rebelo examining the window in Oct 2007. But I do not understand how you can dispute the following photo Misty http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMJ_QdDWoAEEqAb.jpg It is clearly a crime scene photo taken soon after the apparent disappearance of the child, and it clearly shows two net curtains.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on June 20, 2016, 02:02:14 AM
The photograph accompanied the 2014 article below.
English want to take the curtain Maddie Room British researchers intend to reassess the bedroom curtain where Maddie slept. Rui Pando Gomes
It is a piece of the room curtains where Maddie was sleeping and was fully considered by the Portuguese experts in 2007. It is this piece of fabric that the British police now want to take England to be analyzed by a private laboratory, because it believes may be the key to the mystery of the disappearance of British child.
The British want to re-examine everything that was found by Portuguese police in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz in Lagos. Researchers believe that whoever took the child's room will have left DNA traces in the curtains.
The piece of fabric, which is saved in the process, was subjected to various tests by experts from the National Institute of Forensic Medicine. At the time, know the CM, we evaluated the presence of blood, hair and semen. no trace, which made it impossible to compare with DNA profile was not found.
However, the British say, seven years later, they can use new techniques to detect DNA. They also want to re-examine 30 hairs found in the home, using new genetic and biological tests. The request for a review of the remains will be done to the prosecution of Portimão through a sixth letter rogatory, although there is still no answer to the fifth order.
The Portuguese authorities warned the British, a two weeks meeting that the techniques used in Portugal are equal or more sophisticated than those used in England.
That is a press photo of Rebelo examining the window in Oct 2007. But I do not understand how you can dispute the following photo Misty http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMJ_QdDWoAEEqAb.jpg It is clearly a crime scene photo taken soon after the apparent disappearance of the child, and it clearly shows two net curtains.
Yes, sorry, my mistake, I was reading the site I linked the photo to & the quote from Flores about the size of the window opening.
The other photo - no date, time or PJ stamp on it. Not in the files, so how can it be authenticated?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 20, 2016, 12:39:58 PM
So the curtains were either open or drawn back [early statements] or they were closed and blew inwards with a gust of wind [later statements]. In videos only the nets are shown billowing in the wind, not the heavier full length curtains, which don't appear to be fully closed. It would be interesting to know the strength of a gust of wind needed to cause the bedroom door to slam if the main curtains were closed.
There was then another gust of wind which caused the curtains to fly open and she saw that the window was pushed right open and the shutter was right up. Did the curtains fly open in the middle then? Both sets? I wonder how wide the gap had to be to see that the window was pushed right open? You might assume it was, given all the gusts of wind, but would you see it? Equally, would you see enough to know the shutter was right up?
According to the later statements then the shutter was up, the window was open but the curtains were closed. Kate must have opened them then. She went over and drew back both sets of curtains. A reconstruction would perhaps have shown how she did that. Did it involve two actions, one for the main curtains and one for the nets? Where did she stand to do it? In front of the bed or in the gap between the bed and the chair? I'm interested because the left hand curtain was trapped by the bed, which involves first opening it then pushing the bed against the wall to trap it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 20, 2016, 01:46:30 PM
So the curtains were either open or drawn back [early statements] or they were closed and blew inwards with a gust of wind [later statements]. In videos only the nets are shown billowing in the wind, not the heavier full length curtains, which don't appear to be fully closed. It would be interesting to know the strength of a gust of wind needed to cause the bedroom door to slam if the main curtains were closed.
There was then another gust of wind which caused the curtains to fly open and she saw that the window was pushed right open and the shutter was right up. Did the curtains fly open in the middle then? Both sets? I wonder how wide the gap had to be to see that the window was pushed right open? You might assume it was, given all the gusts of wind, but would you see it? Equally, would you see enough to know the shutter was right up?
According to the later statements then the shutter was up, the window was open but the curtains were closed. Kate must have opened them then. She went over and drew back both sets of curtains. A reconstruction would perhaps have shown how she did that. Did it involve two actions, one for the main curtains and one for the nets? Where did she stand to do it? In front of the bed or in the gap between the bed and the chair? I'm interested because the left hand curtain was trapped by the bed, which involves first opening it then pushing the bed against the wall to trap it.
When the window is slid maximum open the resulting opening is only 50% of the total window area and this is normally the right (viewed from inside) 50% of the window area. So viewed from inside, and with wind from north, the right curtain and the right net will get blown in more than the left curtain and left net.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 20, 2016, 02:03:59 PM
When the window is slid maximum open the resulting opening is only 50% of the total window area and this is normally the right (viewed from inside) 50% of the window area. So viewed from inside, and with wind from north, the right curtain and the right net will get blown in more than the left curtain and left net.
Can you explain the l/h net position & the fingerprints? What do you make of the position of the r/h main curtain tie-back pictured on the floor?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 20, 2016, 02:54:54 PM
It could have been on the floor before the window was opened I suppose. Would a gust of wind and a flapping curtain dislodge a tie-back?
The trapping of the left hand curtain behind the bed is the interesting question imo.
Rather like the curtain behind the sofa in the lounge, I suspect the bed had been moved before the photos were taken. Very little pictured was exactly as it was when Kate entered 5a at 10pm.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 20, 2016, 09:38:08 PM
Rather like the curtain behind the sofa in the lounge, I suspect the bed had been moved before the photos were taken. Very little pictured was exactly as it was when Kate entered 5a at 10pm.
Maybe someone searched under the bed near the window?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 20, 2016, 11:38:10 PM
Rather like the curtain behind the sofa in the lounge, I suspect the bed had been moved before the photos were taken. Very little pictured was exactly as it was when Kate entered 5a at 10pm.
As we don't know if anything was moved or not it can't be suggested as an explanation though.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 20, 2016, 11:55:37 PM
As we don't know if anything was moved or not it can't be suggested as an explanation though.
Kate allegedly slept in that bed on the Wednesday night. Do you think she did so with the long curtains draped across the bedcovers? The bed did not seem to have been remade by housekeeping judging by the photos.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on June 21, 2016, 12:03:21 AM
Kate allegedly slept in that bed on the Wednesday night. Do you think she did so with the long curtains draped across the bedcovers? The bed did not seem to have been remade by housekeeping judging by the photos.
There was no housekeeping visit on Thursday.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on June 21, 2016, 12:50:36 AM
No, there wasn't, you are correct. MO did not describe the curtains at 9.30pm as being in the positions shown in the CSI photos. So changes occurred after 9.30pm if you believe his recollection of the scene.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on June 21, 2016, 06:26:27 AM
Kate allegedly slept in that bed on the Wednesday night. Do you think she did so with the long curtains draped across the bedcovers? The bed did not seem to have been remade by housekeeping judging by the photos.
No curtains were draped across the bedcovers in the PJ pics. The left hand curtain was trapped behind the bed and the right hand curtain was hanging down behind the chair.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: faithlilly on July 02, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
Where has the crowdfunding thread gone?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on July 04, 2016, 07:01:18 PM
The photo is of Madeleine's bedroom. It is a press photo taken later in 2007, you can see her bed, and the chest of drawers next to her bed. http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzapartment5ad.jpg
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on July 05, 2016, 01:55:35 AM
The photo is of Madeleine's bedroom. It is a press photo taken later in 2007, you can see her bed, and the chest of drawers next to her bed. http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzapartment5ad.jpg
Sadies referring to what looks like a yellow curtain over the bed and a just distinquishable window....probably photoshopped by the paper to enhance the vision of an abductor from window
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on July 05, 2016, 02:11:43 AM
Sadies referring to what looks like a yellow curtain over the bed and a just distinquishable window....probably photoshopped by the paper to enhance the vision of an abductor from window
It's definitely her bedroom. You can see one of the wall mounted fake headboards. You can see the small bedside cupboard (the chest of drawers has been moved and is not visible). You can see a chair which has been moved there from the dining room. What you call a "yellow curtain" is actually in the foreground and is a see through net curtain (blown in by wind) of the window through which the photo is taken.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on July 05, 2016, 02:20:32 AM
It's definitely her bedroom. You can see one of the wall mounted fake headboards. You can see the small bedside cupboard (the chest of drawers has been moved and is not visible). You can see a chair which has been moved there from the dining room. What you call a "yellow curtain" is actually in the foreground and a see through net curtain (blown in by wind) of the window through which the photo is taken.
The window would have been at the bottom of that picture not top right of it, the yellow curtain seems to be at the top right, I wont argue though, but I agree that was the kids' bedroom, (deleted comment till can find confirmation)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pegasus on July 05, 2016, 02:28:42 AM
The window would have been at the bottom of that picture not top right of it, the yellow curtain seems to be at the top right, I wont argue though, but I agree that was the kids' bedroom, though NOT taken on the night as some newspapers pathetically claimed (source the mccannfiles page called apartment 5a in left hand index )
It's a wind-blown net curtain of the window the photo is taken through. The net is flying in the air, much closer to camera than the headboard etc. That's why looking through the net you can see the headboard and chair and bedside cupboard and her bed. IMO photo was taken some weeks after 3 May, just after dawn IMO (journos illegally open the shutter and window from outside before other people are out of bed to see them).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on July 05, 2016, 01:42:35 PM
Interesting news. Please consider opening a new thread.
It's a wind-blown net curtain of the window the photo is taken through. The net is flying in the air, much closer to camera than the headboard etc. That's why looking through the net you can see the headboard and chair and bedside cupboard and her bed. IMO photo was taken some weeks after 3 May, just after dawn IMO (journos illegally open the shutter and window from outside before other people are out of bed to see them).
I still maintain that the photo is not of Madeleines bedroom, because ... The window is on the wrong wall
That is unless Peg was incorrect in saying that it is a photo of BOTH the net curtains flying.
If she made a slip up there, then it is just about feasible.
That aside, it is good to see just how the nets fly in a breeze/ draft. Thank you Pegasus.
It's a wind-blown net curtain of the window the photo is taken through. The net is flying in the air, much closer to camera than the headboard etc. That's why looking through the net you can see the headboard and chair and bedside cupboard and her bed. IMO photo was taken some weeks after 3 May, just after dawn IMO (journos illegally open the shutter and window from outside before other people are out of bed to see them).
Ok thank you, I see it now
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: mercury on July 05, 2016, 11:03:36 PM
It's a bit of an optical illusion Sadie, the photo is from the window in Madeleine's room just imagine that the curtains are blowing from the window in Madeleine's room and the bed is further back and not in front of the window.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on July 07, 2016, 07:26:20 PM
It's a bit of an optical illusion Sadie, the photo is from the window in Madeleine's room just imagine that the curtains are blowing from the window in Madeleine's room and the bed is further back and not in front of the window.
Only Kate saw blowing curtains! hardly independent witness.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2018, 02:31:59 PM
The parents did search... So it's not a fact... So it's false criticism
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on April 26, 2018, 02:43:40 PM
People who say that The McCanns didn't search are at best misinformed. Although I am pretty certain that some of them know that it isn't true. In which case it would be a lie.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
If being the mother of a missing child doesn't disbar criticism why mention it?
You seem to be permitting criticism of one particular decision. In my opinion it's not anyone's place to tell others what they can or cannot criticise.
In many instances commentators are accused of criticising when they are actually commenting. Pointing out that the parents didn't search for their daughter is often seen as a criticism, but it's just a fact.
The mccanns did search so are you just simply misinformed
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2018, 10:11:15 AM
25th May 2007; no physical searching...
JH: And I've spoken to a lot of people, over the weeks, who... local people who'd given up a lot of time. You've talked about the support that they've given you. I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'?
KM: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm... we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm... but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id212.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 10:28:07 AM
JH: And I've spoken to a lot of people, over the weeks, who... local people who'd given up a lot of time. You've talked about the support that they've given you. I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'?
KM: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm... we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm... but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id212.htm
Kate is on record as saying they searched the night maddie went missing... The statement you refer to refers to the days afterwards... It is in the present tense
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 27, 2018, 11:17:39 AM
Kate is on record as saying they searched the night maddie went missing... The statement you refer to refers to the days afterwards... It is in the present tense
Search
verb (used with object)
To go or look through (a place, area, etc.) carefully in order to find something missing or lost:
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 11:19:18 AM
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on April 27, 2018, 11:48:38 AM
The going out jogging with the press and media in tow never ceases to amaze me. Here was a couple who admitted to not physically searching for their missing four-year-old daughter other than the morning after the night of her disappearance, yet they go out jogging while the little girl might be lying in a ditch or a well not that far away. I'm sorry but the old excuse that different people resort to different methods to relieve stress just doesn't wash IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Erngath on April 27, 2018, 11:55:21 AM
The going out jogging with the press and media in tow never ceases to amaze me. Here was a couple who admitted to not physically searching for their missing four-year-old daughter other than the morning after the night of her disappearance, yet they go out jogging while the little girl might be lying in a ditch or a well not that far away. I'm sorry but the old excuse that different people resort to different methods to relieve stress just doesn't wash IMO.
It washes with me. Makes perfect sense. IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on April 27, 2018, 11:57:57 AM
What would make perfect sense is being with the police encouraging further searches, not running up a hill in Praia da Luz looking as if they hadn't a care in the world. It would be interesting to hear what a psychologist would say about it.
What would make perfect sense is being with the police encouraging further searches, not running up a hill in Praia da Luz looking as if they hadn't a care in the world.
In my professional opinion having witnessed other parents reacting to missing children.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 27, 2018, 12:09:12 PM
Madeleine could have been on top of that hill. Shame they didn't search there. I of course believe everything they say - everything for a reason ?>)()<
Insp Paiva told the hearing in Lisbon: “Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying.
“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there."
“She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us.”
In my professional opinion having witnessed other parents reacting to missing children.
Have you ever been the parent of a missing child? I interacted with parents all my professional life and parents cope with and react differently to stress, worry and even injury and death of a child. Unless you have personally known the experience of a missing child, it is difficult to decide what is or is not the correct way to behave. I had a friend whose teenage son caused a great deal of worry and distress. She handled this by going on a shopping spree. This was the only way she could handle the stress. I found it puzzling but that was her coping mechanism Jogging and exercise are often used as a means of coping with stress. Perhaps not what you would do but that does not make it wrong for those who find it helps.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 12:22:52 PM
What would make perfect sense is being with the police encouraging further searches, not running up a hill in Praia da Luz looking as if they hadn't a care in the world. It would be interesting to hear what a psychologist would say about it.
A psychologist would say they are doing exactly the right thing ....there are different coping mechanisms... One is to take prescribed drugs as many bereaved people do.... The mccanns took the exercise route... A, far better choice imo
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 12:25:05 PM
My post has been edited... If you say the mccanns did not search because iyo they did not look carefully then it is reasonable to say the pj looked but did not search... I find that a ridiculous statement but according to your post it's a reasonable thing to say
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2018, 12:26:26 PM
Kate is on record as saying they searched the night maddie went missing... The statement you refer to refers to the days afterwards... It is in the present tense
When did Kate McCann create this record and please can you provide a copy or link?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 12:27:55 PM
What would make perfect sense is being with the police encouraging further searches, not running up a hill in Praia da Luz looking as if they hadn't a care in the world. It would be interesting to hear what a psychologist would say about it.
You know it's in her book... Simply ignore the evidence that shows you are wrong but all your conclusions will be wrong too
The book was written four years after the event. The interview with Jane Hill was three weeks after the event. Are you saying that three weeks after the event she'd forgotten the searching she did, but remembered it later? Gerry made no claim of searching in September 2007 either;
When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they stayed inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way.
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on April 27, 2018, 01:16:27 PM
Have you ever been the parent of a missing child? I interacted with parents all my professional life and parents cope with and react differently to stress, worry and even injury and death of a child. Unless you have personally known the experience of a missing child, it is difficult to decide what is or is not the correct way to behave. I had a friend whose teenage son caused a great deal of worry and distress. She handled this by going on a shopping spree. This was the only way she could handle the stress. I found it puzzling but that was her coping mechanism Jogging and exercise are often used as a means of coping with stress. Perhaps not what you would do but that does not make it wrong for those who find it helps.
Just so happens I was in that position in Majorca in 1985. I know from first hand experience the terror this involves but fortunately for me it only last an hour as my three-year-old was found by the police having wandered off!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 01:17:50 PM
The book was written four years after the event. The interview with Jane Hill was three weeks after the event. Are you saying that three weeks after the event she'd forgotten the searching she did, but remembered it later? Gerry made no claim of searching in September 2007 either;
When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they stayed inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way.
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
You are taking statements out of context Posting opinion as fact
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on April 27, 2018, 01:20:35 PM
A psychologist would say they are doing exactly the right thing ....there are different coping mechanisms... One is to take prescribed drugs as many bereaved people do.... The mccanns took the exercise route... A, far better choice imo
Had they done so away from view you might have had a point but they chose to draw attention to themselves which in my view is far from normal. There are health benefits from jogging but doing it in full public glare in those curcumstances was questionable. Had they jogged down to the police station it might even have been beneficial in other ways too.
Had they done so away from view you might have had a point but they chose to draw attention to themselves which in my view is far from normal.
had they tried to hide the fact that they were jogging.....and been discovered ...how do you think that would have been viewed....I can see exactly why they jogged...I can see exactly why they tried to maintain normality...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2018, 01:35:06 PM
had they tried to hide the fact that they were jogging.....and been discovered ...how do you think that would have been viewed....I can see exactly why they jogged...I can see exactly why they tried to maintain normality...
"Mens sana in corpore sano"
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2018, 01:45:10 PM
You are taking statements out of context Posting opinion as fact
I have posted statements made by both parents which don't contain any claims that they physically searched the outside areas for their daughter. It does say in their police statements that they searched inside the apartment.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 01:47:42 PM
its been discussed many times before.....hard exercise releases endorphins.....so if you are severely stressed yu can either drink...take mind altering drugs...or exercise ...exercise is by far the better option
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 01:51:39 PM
I have posted statements made by both parents which don't contain any claims that they physically searched the outside areas for their daughter. It does say in their police statements that they searched inside the apartment.
the fact that one particular statement does not contain any claims of searching does not mean there are other statements which confirmed they searched... In Kates book she describes searching...so unless she is mistaken, she searched.. you have stated the mccanns did not search..that is your opinion ..not fact IMO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on April 27, 2018, 01:54:45 PM
Have you ever been the parent of a missing child? I interacted with parents all my professional life and parents cope with and react differently to stress, worry and even injury and death of a child. Unless you have personally known the experience of a missing child, it is difficult to decide what is or is not the correct way to behave. I had a friend whose teenage son caused a great deal of worry and distress. She handled this by going on a shopping spree. This was the only way she could handle the stress. I found it puzzling but that was her coping mechanism Jogging and exercise are often used as a itof coping with stress. Perhaps not what you would do but that does not make it wrong for those who find it helps.
Well said Erngath, and so true.
I know when I have been under stress I have cleaned the house from top to bottom, others find going for a long walk is helpful. The McCann's were waiting for news, there wasn't any, I can't imagine what stress they must have been under, it must have been agony for them just waiting around, not knowing what was happening to their child. Running is obviously something they do, so running was the obvious choice to deal with their stress.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on April 27, 2018, 01:59:40 PM
I have posted statements made by both parents which don't contain any claims that they physically searched the outside areas for their daughter. It does say in their police statements that they searched inside the apartment.
I have accused no-one of lying and what opinion have I posted as fact?
Obviously Kate was talking about the week following Madeleine's disappearance, not that they hadn't searched for Madeleine. They searched the apartment, they searched the surrounding area, they searched further afield in the early hours of the 4th of May, in between that they were there for the police. Following their early morning search they had to be there for the police.
Can you tell me what good it would have done to go tearing around the countryside searching when there was an organised police search under way? Even if the McCann's could have done that [which they couldn't as they were giving statements] they would probably have been told to go home. Or being accused of trying to cover up where Madeleine was. It is cruel thing to accuse the parents of not searching for their child IMO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 27, 2018, 02:15:57 PM
My post has been edited... If you say the mccanns did not search because iyo they did not look carefully then it is reasonable to say the pj looked but did not search... I find that a ridiculous statement but according to your post it's a reasonable thing to say
Can you provide a cite that they looked carefully?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 02:29:15 PM
Just so happens I was in that position in Majorca in 1985. I know from first hand experience the terror this involves but fortunately for me it only last an hour as my three-year-old was found by the police having wandered off!
I have also been in a similar position...for about the same amount of time...so I am speaking from experience too
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 27, 2018, 02:36:37 PM
the fact that one particular statement does not contain any claims of searching does not mean there are other statements which confirmed they searched... In Kates book she describes searching...so unless she is mistaken, she searched.. you have stated the mccanns did not search..that is your opinion ..not fact IMO
What searching did Kate describe then?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 04:30:25 PM
As soon as it was first light Gerry and I resumed our search
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on April 27, 2018, 04:33:52 PM
Maybe they went off searching in the hire car? We will never know because a judge refused permission for it to be wire tapped. Yet another lost opportunity.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Carana on April 27, 2018, 05:14:22 PM
Maybe they went off searching in the hire car? We will never know because a judge refused permission for it to be wire tapped. Yet another lost opportunity.
Does mounting the biggest missing child campaign not count as a form of searching, or does "searching" only concern breaking down doors crawling on one's knees and being taken into custody on illegal entry charges?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2018, 06:20:10 PM
As soon as it was first light Gerry and I resumed our search
It seems strange that she didn't mention this in her interview on 25th May, nor did Gerry on 7th September; both were asked and both denied physically searching.
I don't know what time first light was, but I assume it was about 6 am because Kate said they were out for an hour and they were seen in a street at 7 am by GNR officer Paulo Neto.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 06:39:43 PM
It seems strange that she didn't mention this in her interview on 25th May, nor did Gerry on 7th September; both were asked and both denied physically searching.
I don't know what time first light was, but I assume it was about 6 am because Kate said they were out for an hour and they were seen in a street at 7 am by GNR officer Paulo Neto.
They did not deny that they had physically searched. You are quoting Kate from her book where she says they resumed their search.... Kate said they searched so they either did or she is lying.. This is not my opinion it is fact
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2018, 07:27:47 PM
They did not deny that they had physically searched... You are misrepresenting the facts, which to a certain extent pleases me... It shows you are not accepting the truth.. IMO.. And that's why your conclusions are flawed... You are quoting Kate from her book where she says they resumed their search.... So they either did search or you are accusing Kate of lies..
You are presenting no evidence for your claims, I see.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2018, 07:31:27 PM
You are unable to You are presenting no evidence for your claims, I see.
I can't cut and paste from Kate's, book but you are aware..as are most others that Kate, wrote, about searching in her book... I'm sure, you are, aware of that... So Kate either, searched, as, she, said or, she is mistaken.. And you have stated as fact she, did not search so are implying she is mistaken
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on April 27, 2018, 07:44:43 PM
I simply do not understand this. Beyond the first morning did anyone want The Mccanns to find the dead body of their daughter?
I have read this rubbish endlessly. There was nothing that they could do. They had no right of access to anywhere, or a right to question anyone. To suggest otherwise is utterly ridiculous.
And I am getting very fed up with the perpetual nastiness. But apparently this Forum allows its members to be downright nasty.
I have to cope with that without allowing bias to affect me. Tis mortal hard sometimes.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 28, 2018, 12:37:39 AM
Maybe they went off searching in the hire car? We will never know because a judge refused permission for it to be wire tapped. Yet another lost opportunity.
THey didn't have a hire car in the early days .... did they?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 28, 2018, 12:45:34 AM
It seems strange that she didn't mention this in her interview on 25th May, nor did Gerry on 7th September; both were asked and both denied physically searching.
I don't know what time first light was, but I assume it was about 6 am because Kate said they were out for an hour and they were seen in a street at 7 am by GNR officer Paulo Neto.
Neil Berry and Raj Balu confirm that Gerry searched. Kate stayed home (mainly) because someone had to be there in case Madeleine suddenly came home, or the Police arrived .... whatever. She also stayed with her twins; I bet she was terified for them too
Poor Kate and Gerry, being demeaned and slated for not searching in the early hours as their friends and others searched. They were dealing with the Police, Looking after the twins, contacting home, moving into a different apartment and trying to gather themselves together. THey must have been totally gutted as reality sank in.
They searched at the crack of dawn and probably hadn't slept a wink all night (all two hours of it!)
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 28, 2018, 12:59:48 AM
They took posters with them into Spain using the hire car. Putting up posters is a form of searching.
Producing and putting up posters is an advanced form of searching, but I dont think they had that car for a while after Madeleine vanished, Rob.
THeir main form of searching after the initial period was organising more advanced ways of searching. And desperately hoping that God would help them, the Pope, Fatima, the Church praying etc.
This progressed into more media savvy methods of searching with interviews with Oprah etc..... an on .... finally hitting the jackpot by getting SY involved and the re-opening of the case in PT.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 28, 2018, 01:16:58 AM
What would make perfect sense is being with the police encouraging further searches, not running up a hill in Praia da Luz looking as if they hadn't a care in the world. It would be interesting to hear what a psychologist would say about it.
A psychologist would applaud them for trying to keep their sanity and clarity of mind in such circumstances. Their medical friends too.
It is a well known MEDICAL FACT that running (and other hard exercise) creates endomorphines which help remove stress, anxiety etc ... and rests and clears the brain.
There are any number of articles on the internet, which collectively prove that running was the best way to retain their bodily and mental health and relieve the stress and anxiety.
So clearing their brains for creative thought progressing their search
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 28, 2018, 01:24:30 AM
I have just enlarged the above image x 300 and taken a look at their faces.
The eyes and the mouths give it away, brave though they are. Poor Gerry, his eyes look like he is exhausted and has cried all night; Kates too. Their mouths are turned down. So sad
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 28, 2018, 01:30:35 AM
Madeleine could have been on top of that hill. Shame they didn't search there. I of course believe everything they say - everything for a reason ?>)()<
Insp Paiva told the hearing in Lisbon: “Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying.
“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there."
“She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us.”
Maybe they did. Just cos you see them jogging on the hill doesn't mean that they didn't search when they were there. I admire them for doing their best to keep their sanity
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 28, 2018, 01:48:51 AM
Had they done so away from view you might have had a point but they chose to draw attention to themselves which in my view is far from normal. There are health benefits from jogging but doing it in full public glare in those curcumstances was questionable. Had they jogged down to the police station it might even have been beneficial in other ways too.
Ask SIL if you dont believe me, or better still try climbing that hill and see if the Mccanns would be in the public eye for long *&^^& That hill goes on and on ... and it is terribly steep. Unless the public were regular and fit keen joggers, dressed appropriately, they would soon be left behind
Those jogs not only increased the endomorphines, but also put them in touch with nature to lift their spirits and gave them the privacy to discuss worrying points, totally unheard by others. The openess of the first plateaux with amazing views and with such a "vast high" sky, alone, would be exhilerating.
I never attempted the top part of their jog. Imo, it was a mighty achievement to jog even the first part.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on April 28, 2018, 02:22:19 AM
In what way is it indicative of "not searching" for Kate and Gerry McCann's much despised and campaigned against efforts on behalf of Madeleine McCann to have been instrumental in getting the authorities of two sovereign nations to order their forces of law and order to reinstate their official searches for her?
Madeleine's parents have striven against the odds to have Madeleine searched for to the extent of raising funds to finance private detectives to conduct searches for her when the forces of law and order were not. In my opinion it is entirely risible that the very members of a faction who have devoted straining every sinew to insisting in one form or another against any searches for Madeleine criticise them.
How is the stance of that transference of the aims and objectives of those who are unapologetic campaigners against searching for Madeleine McCann into the reverse propaganda distortion that the sceptic stance is not theirs but Kate and Gerry's. In my opinion any suggestion that Kate and Gerry McCann did not search for Madeleine defies logic in the face of the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the years of dedicating their lives to doing just that. Searching and keeping up campaigning to eventually be successful in getting the people with the powers to do what their private detectives could not do on Madeleine's behalf does not equate with "not searching".
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 28, 2018, 09:47:08 AM
Maybe they did. Just cos you see them jogging on the hill doesn't mean that they didn't search when they were there. I admire them for doing their best to keep their sanity
Kate thought Madeleine was on top of a hill and they ran regularly to the top of a hill.
MONDAY, JULY 23: I got up at 7.00 and went running. I was surrounded by a pack of dogs (more or less 12)—it really wasn't a nice experience. I went to the flat, high part of the cliff as I felt really alone and a little frightened. Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here. Please God, make sure she's alive. Please God, bring her back quickly to us.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 28, 2018, 09:48:18 AM
Putting up posters searching, but I dont think they had that car for a while after Madeleine vanished, Rob.
THeir main form of searching after the initial period was organising more advanced ways of searching. And desperately hoping that God would help them, the Pope, Fatima, the Church praying etc.
This progressed into more media savvy methods of searching with interviews with Oprah etc..... an on .... finally hitting the jackpot by getting SY involved and the re-opening of the case in PT.
Hitting the jackpot would be finding Maddie, all that has really happened so far has been nothing more than a blame game and a distraction. The McCanns have a habit of saying one thing but doing the opposite. Two examples would be the promise that the Maddie fund would be transparent with no stone unturned and it ended up a secretive private entity. Then there was the boast that they would never leave Portugal without Maddie when in reality they couldn't get out quick enough when it came to their own skins. Pathetic really imo !!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on April 28, 2018, 10:22:19 AM
Kate thought Madeleine was on top of a hill and they ran regularly to the top of a hill.
MONDAY, JULY 23: I got up at 7.00 and went running. I was surrounded by a pack of dogs (more or less 12)—it really wasn't a nice experience. I went to the flat, high part of the cliff as I felt really alone and a little frightened. Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here. Please God, make sure she's alive. Please God, bring her back quickly to us.
Are we reading the same cite?
"Please God, make sure she's alive. Please God, bring her back quickly to us.
Hoping her missing child was not buried somewhere in the hills around Luz hardly equates with the probably libellous but certainly unkind assertion you make.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 28, 2018, 10:36:59 AM
I can't cut and paste from Kate's, book but you are aware..as are most others that Kate, wrote, about searching in her book... I'm sure, you are, aware of that... So Kate either, searched, as, she, said or, she is mistaken.. And you have stated as fact she, did not search so are implying she is mistaken
Kate McCann told Jenny Hill in May 2007 that she hadn't physically searched for her missing daughter. Four years later she wrote a book in which she claimed she had physically searched for her daughter. She gave those contradictory accounts, not I.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2018, 10:39:32 AM
Kate McCann told Jenny Hill in May 2007 that she hadn't physically searched for her missing daughter. Four years later she wrote a book in which she claimed she had physically searched for her daughter. She gave those contradictory accounts, not I.
Kate did not say she had not physically searched... You are misunderstanding what she, said. Imo
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 28, 2018, 10:54:03 AM
Kate McCann told Jenny Hill in May 2007 that she hadn't physically searched for her missing daughter. Four years later she wrote a book in which she claimed she had physically searched for her daughter. She gave those contradictory accounts, not I.
If you listen to the interview she was asked what she is currently doing as far as the search for Madeleine was concerned and she replied with all they things they were doing, which may not be deemed "physical" searching but which add to the efforts to find her. That does not mean she was talking about from the moment Madeleine went missing they did no physical searching. It's very clear if you listen to it properly.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on April 28, 2018, 11:01:26 AM
Posters are warned that this goading and nitpicking must cease otherwise I will suspend accounts.
Please take heed.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2018, 11:02:23 AM
If you listen to the interview she was asked what she is currently doing as far as the search for Madeleine was concerned and she replied with all they things they were doing, which may not be deemed "physical" searching but which add to the efforts to find her. That does not mean she was talking about from the moment Madeleine went missing they did no physical searching. It's very clear if you listen to it properly.
Exactly!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2018, 11:24:16 AM
Kate McCann told Jenny Hill in May 2007 that she hadn't physically searched for her missing daughter. Four years later she wrote a book in which she claimed she had physically searched for her daughter. She gave those contradictory accounts, not I.
You are mistaken... Kate never said they had not physically searched...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on April 28, 2018, 11:32:09 AM
So is it true to say the only physical searching the parents have been involved in was in the hours following Madeleine's disappearance?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2018, 11:34:22 AM
"Please God, make sure she's alive. Please God, bring her back quickly to us.
Hoping her missing child was not buried somewhere in the hills around Luz hardly equates with the probably libellous but certainly unkind assertion you make.
Paiva said clearly in court what she told him. Go read my previous post for it.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on April 28, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
Paiva said clearly in court what she told him. Go read my previous post for it.
There are many posts and even threads not only from you for reference on the forum. Paiva in my opinion hardly covered himself in glory when on the witness stand; if you recall that is from where he admitted to filing information still coming in to the enquiry into Madeleine's case file as "not relevant" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7215353/Portuguese-police-ignored-Madeleine-McCann-leads.html
Kate mentions nothing about the alleged dream sequence in relation to a phone call to Paiva and Gerry denied it had ever happened as alleged ... his source obviously being Kate.
Quote taken from another thread ... I mean't to post this last night but was distracted unfortunately. I have checked Kate's book and there is no mention of any dream about seeing Madeleine on a hillside. The only reference she makes to any dream is the one where she meets up with Madeleine at the crèche. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1739.msg150279#msg150279
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on April 28, 2018, 02:10:04 PM
So is it true to say the only physical searching the parents have been involved in was in the hours following Madeleine's disappearance?
I is the physical searching we are aware of yes, who knows if they did other searching that hasn't been documented. Though what searching would you suggest they did John?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on April 28, 2018, 02:12:19 PM
There are many posts and even threads not only from you for reference on the forum. Paiva in my opinion hardly covered himself in glory when on the witness stand; if you recall that is from where he admitted to filing information still coming in to the enquiry into Madeleine's case file as "not relevant" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7215353/Portuguese-police-ignored-Madeleine-McCann-leads.html
Kate mentions nothing about the alleged dream sequence in relation to a phone call to Paiva and Gerry denied it had ever happened as alleged ... his source obviously being Kate.
Quote taken from another thread ... I mean't to post this last night but was distracted unfortunately. I have checked Kate's book and there is no mention of any dream about seeing Madeleine on a hillside. The only reference she makes to any dream is the one where she meets up with Madeleine at the crèche. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1739.msg150279#msg150279
Could this be yet another example of dissociative amnesia as Detective Paiva did say his informant was in an agitated state?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 28, 2018, 04:13:18 PM
That's correct and understandable.... So to say they never searched is incorrect... And to say kate made contradictory statements is incorrect IMO
JH Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'?
KM we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id212.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on April 28, 2018, 04:18:23 PM
John has said that Goading and Nitpicking must cease. Please take note, and don't force me to start deleting.
Thank You.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 28, 2018, 05:04:50 PM
JH Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'?
KM we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id212.htm
I think it is likely that they looked around the apartment and close by, but they didn’t appear to join in any of the organised searches.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2018, 05:16:25 PM
JH Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'?
KM we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id212.htm
Could you please quote the paragraph directly before the bit you quoted? Thanks.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on April 28, 2018, 05:38:44 PM
Could this be yet another example of dissociative amnesia as Detective Paiva did say his informant was in an agitated state?
If Kate had made more than one call to Paiva there would be a record of that whether landline or mobile, so if it was an important issue for the present investigators of SY or the PJ the answer to that may already be known.
I disagree entirely with the concept that Kate had dissociative amnesia. Undoubtedly there is a fair chance she must have been suffering post traumatic stress at the time but she did keep a diary covering the period in question which the PJ of the time made an illegal copy and it is alleged used accordingly.
Snip The newspaper's full statement read: "Last week we published extracts from Kate McCann's diaries and explained in the article that we were doing so to 'nail the lies' about Kate created by selective leaking from the diaries by Portuguese police.
"We published the extracts in the belief held in good faith that we had Kate's permission to do so.
"It is now clear that our belief was misplaced, and that in fact Kate neither approved of nor knew that the extracts were to be published. Upon learning of our error we immediately removed the extracts from our website and we today offer Kate our immediate and sincere apologies." https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/sep/22/madeleinemccann.newsoftheworld
So her memory was in my opinion together enough to give the meat and bones to the alleged machinations of the Amaral team working against her ... which included Piava. Who is to say Paiva is not the one suffering from some type of memory problem in relation to his recall of events?
However it is my firm belief that like all the other forum chit chat the allegation that Kate dreamed a dream as stated by Paiva is in the same league as the rather vapid complaint that the McCanns did no searching for their daughter.
Imagine the plethora of comment if they had gone out physically searching every day with press entourage in tow ... I seem to remember snide comment being made during a Portuguese talk show as a result of Gerry being photographed beside rocks in the sea.
The sceptics have defied logic in my opinion and have adopted a win win mantle for themselves. The McCanns can be damned if they do and they can be damned if they don't. Kate and Gerry have achieved the impossible in being instrumental in having the official police search for Madeleine resumed and are roundly castigated for that ... while at the same time are excoriated for "not searching".
You really couldn't make it up 8(8-))
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2018, 06:08:31 PM
JH Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'?
KM we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id212.htm
You claimed kate had said they hadnt searched which is untrue...hadnt is past tense...in your quote kate is referring to the present. kate refers to searching in her book so unless she is mistaken, then they searched. You are taking your interpretation of kates words and presententing them as fact...it is your opinon and interpretation...not fact.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2018, 06:16:59 PM
Kate described how she searched in her book....her account is true or she is mistaken.......I dont see any problem with that statement..
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 28, 2018, 06:59:10 PM
You claimed kate had said they hadnt searched which is untrue...hadnt is past tense...in your quote kate is referring to the present. kate refers to searching in her book so unless she is mistaken, then they searched. You are taking your interpretation of kates words and presententing them as fact...it is your opinon and interpretation...not fact.
The question referred to the early searches when locals went out every day searching for Kate's daughter;
I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'? http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id212.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2018, 07:14:14 PM
The question referred to the early searches when locals went out every day searching for Kate's daughter;
I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'? http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id212.htm
Kate searched according to her book....and I see no raeson to suspect she is mistaken...she did not join the organised searches in the days following...but she searched initially...her statements are not contradictory as you claim
If you want to beleive kate did not search and here sytetements are contradictory thats up to you...but you should not present your opinion as fact
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on April 28, 2018, 07:26:28 PM
I think it is likely that they looked around the apartment and close by, but they didn’t appear to join in any of the organised searches.
That appears to be the case. In fact Kate comments on this in 'Madeleine'.
End of Chapter 5:
"We probably could have stayed in our apartment, but who would have wanted to? Looking back, it’s inexplicable, of course, that we should ever have been left in what was now a crime scene. We shouldn’t even have been allowed to take things out of the children’s bedroom. Mark Warner had prepared another flat for us on the first floor of an adjacent block, but Gerry and I were in no condition to be on our own. We couldn’t look after ourselves, let alone the twins. So the staff put up two extra cots in Fiona and David’s apartment and we carried a sleepy Sean and Amelie into their sitting room. But I needed to keep them close to me. I lowered myself down on to the couch with Fiona. She took a twin from me and we both sat there hugging my children. Holding one of my babies provided me with some much-needed comfort, albeit fleetingly. On my insistence, Gerry and Dave went out again to look for some sign of Madeleine. They went up and down the beach in the dark, running, shouting, desperate to find something; please God, to find Madeleine herself. It was only much later that Gerry told me he’d already started remembering cases of other missing children and acknowledging the horrific possibility that Madeleine might not be found. It was a possibility I could not have begun to contemplate. I don’t know whether the Mark Warner staff were still searching. I couldn’t see anyone about by this time, except for a couple of GNR police cars in the road outside and a handful of officers hanging around. None of them appeared to be doing very much. I couldn’t stand the thought of nothing happening while time marched inexorably onward. Madeleine could be miles away by now. At one point I went out to speak to the police, needing some reassurance. It was difficult and exasperating as communication was so limited, and there was no reassurance to be had. I walked briskly up and down Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, sometimes breaking into a jog, clinging to the hope that I’d spot something in the dark. The fear of Madeleine being dumped somewhere and dying of hypothermia started to hijack my thoughts. Back in the apartment the cold, black night enveloped us al for what seemed like an eternity. Dianne and I sat there just staring at each other, sti l as statues. ‘It’s so dark,’ she said again and again. ‘I want the light to come.’ I felt exactly the same way. Gerry was stretched out on a camp bed with Amelie asleep on his chest. He kept saying, ‘Kate, we need to rest.’ He managed to drift off but only briefly, certainly for less than an hour. I didn’t even try. I couldn’t have allowed myself to entertain sleep. I felt Madeleine’s terror, and I had to keep vigil with her. I needed to be doing something, but I didn’t know where to put myself. I wandered restlessly in and out of the room and on to the balcony. At long last, dawn broke."
Start of Chapter6:
"Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents. We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona’s apartment, where Sean and Amelie were now up and about."
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2018, 08:04:46 PM
The question referred to the early searches when locals went out every day searching for Kate's daughter;
I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'? http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id212.htm
Has Kate at any point ever claimed to go out with the locals every day searching the beach and streets? Would would be the point in lying about it when her every movement was tracked by the world's media from May 4th?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 28, 2018, 08:31:48 PM
"We must have been out for at least an hour" Well Kate did as physical search for at least an hour.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 28, 2018, 08:58:13 PM
1 hour does strike as being not very long IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 29, 2018, 12:11:12 AM
Kate McCann: "As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search." Madeleine
Fiona Payne: They wanted to go out and look and would we just keep an eye on the twins'.
01.06.31 1485 Police: 'Can you remember what sort of time that was roughly''
Reply Fiona Payne: 'Erm it was still very cold and, and dark, erm I think it was you know, between five and six.
You've lost me here? Why the reference to phone activity? Weren't Kate, Gerry and the twins in with the Paynes and only had to ask? What point are you making?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 29, 2018, 08:41:20 AM
Some on here have suggested that we only had The Mccanns word that they searched.
Here we have confirmation from Fiona. Thank you PFinder.
One of the police officers saw them coming back at about 7 am too.
Yes, more confirmation that gun it is, wrong in her, claim
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2018, 09:31:55 AM
When asked if she searched on 25th May 2007 Kate McCann never mentioned this hour of jumping over walls, raking through undergrowth and peering into ditches and holes.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2018, 09:34:13 AM
When asked if she searched on 25th May 2007 Kate McCann never mentioned this hour of jumping over walls, raking through undergrowth and peering into ditches and holes.
She wasn't asked if she had searched.. You need to read it again... And that sounds like pretty thorough searching
Kate was asked if she felt she wanted to take part in the organised searches that took place in the week after the disappearance
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 29, 2018, 09:52:38 AM
That's, a, different argument... Gun it said she did not search... She did
You cannot equate searching with going out, that is merely your interpretation. As the parents always went out alone only they know what they did and where. That applies to the trips away in the hire car too, nobody knows what they were doing as the magistrate refused to allow the vehicle to be bugged.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 29, 2018, 01:17:07 PM
She wasn't asked if she had searched.. You need to read it again... And that sounds like pretty thorough searching
Kate was asked if she felt she wanted to take part in the organised searches that took place in the week after the disappearance
I wonder why she was asked this... it could be she didn't know people were searching and this is why the people in the UK were concerned as the family were telling all and sundry no one was doing anything... which of coarse isn't true at all- along with the 'jemmied shutters' imo ,also emanating from 'the family back home'
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 29, 2018, 01:20:21 PM
You cannot equate searching with going out, that is merely your interpretation. As the parents always went out alone only they know what they did and where. That applies to the trips away in the hire car too, nobody knows what they were doing as the magistrate refused to allow the vehicle to be bugged.
They searched Angelo. Absolutely no question about it. Why do you find it necessary to automatically disbelieve anything they utter ?
Thank goodness that we know about it from just a few of the witnesses, but there would be many more, who simply are not documented IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 29, 2018, 01:30:21 PM
I wonder why she was asked this... it could be she didn't know people were searching and this is why the people in the UK were concerned as the family were telling all and sundry no one was doing anything... which of coarse isn't true at all- along with the 'jemmied shutters' imo ,also emanating from 'the family back home'
As for the 'jemmied shutters', what a fuss has been made over two words. Used widely in Scotland and just "Chinese Whispers" being bulled up to be something big .... simply to try and undermine and bully The Mccanns IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on April 29, 2018, 02:33:48 PM
You cannot equate searching with going out, that is merely your interpretation. As the parents always went out alone only they know what they did and where. That applies to the trips away in the hire car too, nobody knows what they were doing as the magistrate refused to allow the vehicle to be bugged.
That applies to every searcher. I believe the protocol is for police to organise named civilian volunteer searchers into groups who are allocated designated search areas each team led by a professional as demonstrated in the most recent search for a missing child in Edinburgh.
By 10am, 180 members of the public had registered at the North Neighbourhood Centre in West Pilton Gardens to join the search with hundreds more waiting outside to register. http://www.itv.com/news/2014-01-17/community-unites-in-search-for-missing-mikaeel-kular/
One can immediately see why the parents of a missing child are not encouraged to be 'hands on'. Had Mikaeel's mother been innocent of involvement in his death she was apparently in poor mental health so expecting her to conduct her own physical searching would have been most inappropriate. As it stands, the fact she became a suspect who was subsequently found guilty of killing her little boy also shows how inappropriate it would have been.
Similarly, to allow volunteers to range in uncoordinated groups perhaps covering an area repeatedly while not touching on others at all is inappropriate. Knowing who is searching where and when is essential particularly as at a later date a volunteer searcher could become a suspect.
In Britain we have this all down pat - and I'll guarantee it is likewise now in Portugal post 2007 - which is one reason why I find the constant moan about Kate and Gerry allegedly not searching being turned into such a big deal so risible.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 29, 2018, 03:14:15 PM
They searched Angelo. Absolutely no question about it. Why do you find it necessary to automatically disbelieve anything they utter ?
The way that some on here behave towards The Mccanns is downright cruel, and that is not just my opinion
Thank goodness that we know about it from just a few of the witnesses, but there would be many more, who simply are not documented.
They never took part in any organised searches ever to my knowledge which reeks of xenophobia. Do the McCanns think they are better than everyone else because they went to medical school?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 29, 2018, 03:20:27 PM
That applies to every searcher. I believe the protocol is for police to organise named civilian volunteer searchers into groups who are allocated designated search areas each team led by a professional as demonstrated in the most recent search for a missing child in Edinburgh.
By 10am, 180 members of the public had registered at the North Neighbourhood Centre in West Pilton Gardens to join the search with hundreds more waiting outside to register. http://www.itv.com/news/2014-01-17/community-unites-in-search-for-missing-mikaeel-kular/
One can immediately see why the parents of a missing child are not encouraged to be 'hands on'. Had Mikaeel's mother been innocent of involvement in his death she was apparently in poor mental health so expecting her to conduct her own physical searching would have been most inappropriate. As it stands, the fact she became a suspect who was subsequently found guilty of killing her little boy also shows how inappropriate it would have been.
Similarly, to allow volunteers to range in uncoordinated groups perhaps covering an area repeatedly while not touching on others at all is inappropriate. Knowing who is searching where and when is essential particularly as at a later date a volunteer searcher could become a suspect.
In Britain we have this all down pat - and I'll guarantee it is likewise now in Portugal post 2007 - which is one reason why I find the constant moan about Kate and Gerry allegedly not searching being turned into such a big deal so risible.
And we all know how this ended up. A child buried in a shallow grave and a mother convicted of murder.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on April 29, 2018, 03:22:03 PM
They never took part in any organised searches ever to my knowledge which reeks of xenophobia. Do the McCanns think they are better than everyone else because they went to medical school?
I think they certainly display a high degree of entitlement to the extent that they expect others should search on their behalf.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 29, 2018, 03:46:51 PM
They never took part in any organised searches ever to my knowledge which reeks of xenophobia. Do the McCanns think they are better than everyone else because they went to medical school?
Xenophobia, how quaint your thinking is Angelo.
More likely that they couldn't bear to receive sympathy from one and all on such a public search.
[My friend, at 80, has suddenly lost her hubby and within two weeks had gone back to work. Yes she works at 80.
A very popular young looking woman, everyone wanted to show their love and concern and would she be alright? The day that she returned to work after the funeral, she was often asked "would she be alright at work"?
Her first words were "yes, I will be OK, but please dont express sympathy or say anything especially nice to me because, if you do, I will crumble immediately and start weeping.]
And that is apart from the fact that the media would be after them persistently. Also the demands on their time by the police.
Tbh, it wouldn't take such intelligent people as The Mccanns and their friends long to realise the futility of physical searching after the first few hours. They searched the intelligent way and didn't they ever do well, getting the BIG boys [SY and Oporto Special Madeleine group] on board and re-opening the investigation
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on April 29, 2018, 05:41:25 PM
They never took part in any organised searches ever to my knowledge which reeks of xenophobia. Do the McCanns think they are better than everyone else because they went to medical school?
xenophobia
noun dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries. "racism and xenophobia are steadily growing in Europe" synonyms: racism, racialism, racial hatred, ethnocentrism, ethnocentricity
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on April 29, 2018, 08:28:28 PM
When asked if she searched on 25th May 2007 Kate McCann never mentioned this hour of jumping over walls, raking through undergrowth and peering into ditches and holes.
snipped - In the initial stage of the search, devote your time to providing information to and answering questions from investigators. Once you discover that your child is missing, you will desperately want to help with the search. You may, in fact, wonder how you possibly can stand by and let others look for your child. But the reality is that in most instances, the best use of your energy is not on the physical search itself. Rather, you need to provide information to and answer questions from investigators and to be at home in the event your child calls. The checklist Gathering Evidence in the First 48 Hours identifies the most crucial pieces of background information and evidence that law enforcement will need in the search for your child.
snipped - In the initial stage of the search, devote your time to providing information to and answering questions from investigators. Once you discover that your child is missing, you will desperately want to help with the search. You may, in fact, wonder how you possibly can stand by and let others look for your child. But the reality is that in most instances, the best use of your energy is not on the physical search itself. Rather, you need to provide information to and answer questions from investigators and to be at home in the event your child calls. The checklist Gathering Evidence in the First 48 Hours identifies the most crucial pieces of background information and evidence that law enforcement will need in the search for your child.
snipped - In the initial stage of the search, devote your time to providing information to and answering questions from investigators. Once you discover that your child is missing, you will desperately want to help with the search. You may, in fact, wonder how you possibly can stand by and let others look for your child. But the reality is that in most instances, the best use of your energy is not on the physical search itself. Rather, you need to provide information to and answer questions from investigators and to be at home in the event your child calls. The checklist Gathering Evidence in the First 48 Hours identifies the most crucial pieces of background information and evidence that law enforcement will need in the search for your child.
They searched Angelo. Absolutely no question about it imo. Why do you find it necessary to automatically disbelieve anything they utter ?
Thank goodness that we know about it from just a few of the witnesses, but there would be many more, who simply are not documented IMO.
Seemingly no since Kate McCann admits that there was nobody around at dawn. As for disbelieving them, I refer you to the very recent Supreme Court edict which casts doubt on their story thus I am perfectly entitled to be suspicious.
The only searching which they did according to their own statements and interviews was in the hours following Maddie's disappearance, they did not take part in any organised searches which I find incredible.
The McCanns were wrong to claim that nobody was out searching at dawn. They would not have known the full scope of searches which were ongoing around Luz and especially the beach area and in the bay itself and further afield. Thus began the criticism of the police.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Lace on April 30, 2018, 01:59:31 PM
Seemingly no since Kate McCann admits that there was nobody around at dawn. As for disbelieving them, I refer you to the very recent Supreme Court edict which casts doubt on their story thus I am perfectly entitled to be suspicious.
The only searching which they did according to their own statements and interviews was in the hours following Maddie's disappearance, they did not take part in any organised searches which I find incredible.
The McCanns were wrong to claim that nobody was out searching at dawn. They would not have known the full scope of searches which were ongoing around Luz and especially the beach area and in the bay itself and further afield. Thus began the criticism of the police.
I don't find it incredible that the McCann's didn't take part in the organised search. They searched the apartment they searched the surrounding area, then they waited for the police, which is what is recommended that parents of a missing child do. Did Sarah Payne's parents join the organised search? No, did Ben Needham's mother? No, did April's parents? No. Why are the McCann's getting singled out? The parents wait for the Police the parents give statements to the Police, then the Police search.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 30, 2018, 05:08:16 PM
They only did one search and it could be important to the case. Why only one with nobody else around?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2018, 05:13:31 PM
If they were all alone maybe Madeleine was too so if they offered the areas where they searched - hedgerows, ditches etc. it may rule some areas out. To my understanding they've never shared this information and it could be important to the case.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on April 30, 2018, 08:45:40 PM
Seemingly no since Kate McCann admits that there was nobody around at dawn. As for disbelieving them, I refer you to the very recent Supreme Court edict which casts doubt on their story thus I am perfectly entitled to be suspicious.
The only searching which they did according to their own statements and interviews was in the hours following Maddie's disappearance, they did not take part in any organised searches which I find incredible.
The McCanns were wrong to claim that nobody was out searching at dawn. They would not have known the full scope of searches which were ongoing around Luz and especially the beach area and in the bay itself and further afield. Thus began the criticism of the police.
Angelo quote: The only searching which they did according to their own statements and interviews was in the hours following Maddie's disappearance - end quote
I notice that you have cherry picked just The Mccanns statement. How about Raj Balu and Neil Berry, who both confirmed that Gerry was out searching. You must have known about them? Why did you ignore them ??
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on May 01, 2018, 06:27:06 AM
Angelo quote: The only searching which they did according to their own statements and interviews was in the hours following Maddie's disappearance - end quote
I notice that you have cherry picked just The Mccanns statement. How about Raj Balu and Neil Berry, who both confirmed that Gerry was out searching. You must have known about them? Why did you ignore them ??
I can't see any statements from Balu and Berry saying they saw Gerry searching.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on May 01, 2018, 09:38:42 AM
I can't see any statements from Balu and Berry saying they saw Gerry searching.
As you must know by now, the three statements that might prove that Gerry searched are all missing, What did the PJ do with them? And why did these particular statements vanish?
However, it is on record that Balu and Berry did see Gerry searching and had a brief chat with him. As a result of learning that Madeleine was missing they joined the search and searched until 4am.
This fact was on this forum within the last couple of months, or so. I cant think why you don't remember it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 01, 2018, 11:47:15 AM
As you must know by now, the three statements that might prove that Gerry searched are all missing, What did the PJ do with them? And why did these particular statements vanish?
However, it is on record that Balu and Berry did see Gerry searching and had a brief chat with him. As a result of learning that Madeleine was missing they joined the search and searched until 4am.
This fact was on this forum within the last couple of months, or so. I cant think why you don't remember it?
Please provide cite of withdraw your post.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2018, 01:13:43 PM
PJ FILES ALTERED - WHY ?????????? a Special thank you to one of our supporters, who has brought to our attention that the witness statements of Rajinder Singh Balu and Neil Berry have been altered.
The original statements in the PJ files stated that Neil Berry & Raj Balu sitting on there balcony saw a man looking for his daughter in the bushes below.They then engaged with him from the balcony, and then went down and helped him search. That man was Gerry McCann. This text no longer exists in the witness statements. Why is it significant, because the Balu/ Berry sighting of Gerry McCann is 15 meters from the back fence-line of the Murat property. What the hell is going on here ???? https://www.facebook.com/diggingformadeleinmccann/photos/a.216699198493115.1073741849.205966349566400/761895153973514/?type=3&theater
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 01, 2018, 02:29:31 PM
PJ FILES ALTERED - WHY ?????????? a Special thank you to one of our supporters, who has brought to our attention that the witness statements of Rajinder Singh Balu and Neil Berry have been altered.
The original statements in the PJ files stated that Neil Berry & Raj Balu sitting on there balcony saw a man looking for his daughter in the bushes below.They then engaged with him from the balcony, and then went down and helped him search. That man was Gerry McCann. This text no longer exists in the witness statements. Why is it significant, because the Balu/ Berry sighting of Gerry McCann is 15 meters from the back fence-line of the Murat property. What the hell is going on here ???? https://www.facebook.com/diggingformadeleinmccann/photos/a.216699198493115.1073741849.205966349566400/761895153973514/?type=3&theater
So we are now using potentially libellous Supporter Facebook pages as a cite?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2018, 03:02:00 PM
In my opinion a rhetorical question. However grammar probably doesn't fit with the thread topic ... may we stop deflecting and get back there.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 01, 2018, 05:50:15 PM
The OP again "Doesn't seem to be much searching going on does there.
Where, if at all, have Kate & Gerry been searching recently, anyone know?"
So is this thread all about subsequent searches by Kate and Gerry? Fantastic to think that there has been so much that it has been able to fill 156 pages of the forum. Fantastic!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on May 01, 2018, 06:05:57 PM
PJ FILES ALTERED - WHY ?????????? a Special thank you to one of our supporters, who has brought to our attention that the witness statements of Rajinder Singh Balu and Neil Berry have been altered.
The original statements in the PJ files stated that Neil Berry & Raj Balu sitting on there balcony saw a man looking for his daughter in the bushes below.They then engaged with him from the balcony, and then went down and helped him search. That man was Gerry McCann. This text no longer exists in the witness statements. Why is it significant, because the Balu/ Berry sighting of Gerry McCann is 15 meters from the back fence-line of the Murat property. What the hell is going on here ???? https://www.facebook.com/diggingformadeleinmccann/photos/a.216699198493115.1073741849.205966349566400/761895153973514/?type=3&theater
Utter tosh in my opinion and certainly not a trustworthy source!
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 01, 2018, 06:23:30 PM
*snipped* Subject: Group timeline after Madeleine's disappearance
Date:14-08-2007
*snipped*
It is difficult to confirm where all the elements were in the minutes/ hours after the discovery that Madeleine was missing. It appears that most of the women remained within or near the apartments, Fiona Payne left and searched around the complex, before returning to the McCann's apartment where she stayed with Kate. Then Emma Knights (client support director) searched the beach area and asked Kate what Madeleine had been wearing. Shortly afterwards Emma returned to the McCann's apartment and stayed with Kate.
The men's movements, however, are more difficult to pinpoint.
Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.
*snipped* Subject: Group timeline after Madeleine's disappearance
Date:14-08-2007
*snipped*
It is difficult to confirm where all the elements were in the minutes/ hours after the discovery that Madeleine was missing. It appears that most of the women remained within or near the apartments, Fiona Payne left and searched around the complex, before returning to the McCann's apartment where she stayed with Kate. Then Emma Knights (client support director) searched the beach area and asked Kate what Madeleine had been wearing. Shortly afterwards Emma returned to the McCann's apartment and stayed with Kate.
The men's movements, however, are more difficult to pinpoint.
Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.
As seen and reported by 7792 Eaton, I expect, whose name is at the bottom of that section of the report. Why those statements aren't in the files isn't known.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2018, 07:16:57 PM
As seen and reported by 7792 Eaton, I expect, whose name is at the bottom of that section of the report. Why those statements aren't in the files isn't known.
Not actually "utter tosh" then??
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: misty on May 01, 2018, 07:22:36 PM
As seen and reported by 7792 Eaton, I expect, whose name is at the bottom of that section of the report. Why those statements aren't in the files isn't known.
None of the initialwitness statements given to UK police, bar Jez Wilkins's, appear in the files. Data protection, I assume; or they may contain some uncomfortable truths which would have helped prove a certain book even more libellous than it already is. IMO.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 01, 2018, 10:03:15 PM
As seen and reported by 7792 Eaton, I expect, whose name is at the bottom of that section of the report. Why those statements aren't in the files isn't known.
There are plenty of statements which aren't in the file.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 01, 2018, 10:23:25 PM
The tosh is that they where ever in the files. IMO
? ? Date:14-08-2007 *snipped* Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
Presumably that information was in the files when the OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTS - P.J. BRIGADE OF INFORMATION ANALYSIS was collated? If not ... where did it come from?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 02, 2018, 07:09:33 AM
? ? Date:14-08-2007 *snipped* Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
Presumably that information was in the files when the OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTS - P.J. BRIGADE OF INFORMATION ANALYSIS was collated? If not ... where did it come from?
It doesn’t mean a statement from Berry and Malu was in the files.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2018, 07:58:05 AM
? ? Date:14-08-2007 *snipped* Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
Presumably that information was in the files when the OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTS - P.J. BRIGADE OF INFORMATION ANALYSIS was collated? If not ... where did it come from?
Pages 1-11 of that report were produced by the PJ's DCCB in September 2007. Pages 12-14 were produced by Operation Task in August 2007. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_2_SET_SEP07.htm
The quote about Balu and Berry was on page 14, as was a quote about Valerie Kerr. None of their statements are in the PJ files, but the UK police had them, read them and quoted them in August 2007.
The PJ asked Balu in the rog questions;
How did you get to know that a child was missing ?
With regard to the question as to how I became aware a child had gone missing and my involvement in the searches;
After 22:00 we were still sitting on the veranda in the Berry apartment. We heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RAJ_BALU.htm
The same question was asked of Berry;
When exactly did you realise that a child was missing ? Where were you then and who were you with ?
From 22.00 onwards all the events that took place were already described in my previous statement of 7th May 2007 and i cannot add any further information, other than that which was already added. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm
The question is, did the PJ see those original statements? If so, why ask a question which had already been answered according to the Operation Task report?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2018, 02:10:49 PM
It doesn’t mean a statement from Berry and Malu was in the files.
Who fabricated the information contained in the Reports from the Brigade for Information Analysis then? Which were allegedly taken from official documents and files. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 02, 2018, 05:07:28 PM
Who fabricated the information contained in the Reports from the Brigade for Information Analysis then? Which were allegedly taken from official documents and files. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
It’s very simple, there are statements that aren’t in the released files.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Eleanor on May 02, 2018, 06:02:42 PM
I think it is because it is a conscious decision as to what gets released.
And could well have affected public opinion. Including a Trial, should that ever have happened. We all know what happened to Leonor Cipriano and her brother.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2018, 07:49:07 PM
Who fabricated the information contained in the Reports from the Brigade for Information Analysis then? Which were allegedly taken from official documents and files. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
It's not so much a matter of fabrication as information which cannot be confirmed by looking at the source document(s), which is/are not in the files.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2018, 08:15:35 PM
It's not so much a matter of fabrication as information which cannot be confirmed by looking at the source document(s), which is/are not in the files.
Are you suggesting that an analysis of events was conducted from documents which are not in the files despite the fact the analysis is supposedly based on the information in the files?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2018, 09:46:47 PM
Are you suggesting that an analysis of events was conducted from documents which are not in the files despite the fact the analysis is supposedly based on the information in the files?
The statements given to Control Risks by 5 of the Tapas group and Emma Knight are not in the PJ files.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2018, 10:22:04 PM
What exactly does that have to do with the price of beans?
Nothing as far as I know, but they formed part of the basis for the reports, as did the Berry/Balu statements. Although the UK police were helping the PJ it's not clear whether they shared all the information they gathered.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2018, 11:26:54 PM
Nothing as far as I know, but they formed part of the basis for the reports, as did the Berry/Balu statements. Although the UK police were helping the PJ it's not clear whether they shared all the information they gathered.
Isn't it an amazement how flexible the files can be. Am I correct in thinking you deny that Berry and Balu encountered and assisted a searching Gerry because it doesn't appear in the files but you accept the analysis of the files saying that Berry and Balu encountered and assisted a searching Gerry?
Please explain how one can carry out an analysis of information if that information does not exist - according to you - in the document analysed?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 03, 2018, 12:29:58 AM
Isn't it an amazement how flexible the files can be. Am I correct in thinking you deny that Berry and Balu encountered and assisted a searching Gerry because it doesn't appear in the files but you accept the analysis of the files saying that Berry and Balu encountered and assisted a searching Gerry?
Please explain how one can carry out an analysis of information if that information does not exist - according to you - in the document analysed?
I can't explain why the PJ asked a rogatory question of Balu and Berry which they had already answered, according to the report by analyst 7792 Eaton. That makes me wonder if the PJ saw their first statements to the UK police.
I can't explain why Balu and Berry didn't repeat what they said in their first statements when asked that question in their rogatory interviews, but neither of them mentioned hearing Gerry McCann calling for his daughter.
It's possible that the information was taken from Gerry McCann's statement to Control Risks. Perhaps he assumed they appeared because they'd heard him calling.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 03, 2018, 09:26:56 AM
I can't explain why the PJ asked a rogatory question of Balu and Berry which they had already answered, according to the report by analyst 7792 Eaton. That makes me wonder if the PJ saw their first statements to the UK police.
I can't explain why Balu and Berry didn't repeat what they said in their first statements when asked that question in their rogatory interviews, but neither of them mentioned hearing Gerry McCann calling for his daughter.
It's possible that the information was taken from Gerry McCann's statement to Control Risks. Perhaps he assumed they appeared because they'd heard him calling.
This fact needs follow up. I hope OG followed up on the reliability of Balu and Berry.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2018, 09:30:59 AM
Again were the first, statements verbatim... And was, everything they said in those, statements recorded
It would be up to OG to follow this up. The armchair detectives just don't have enough information. Everyone there is a potential suspect and if their statements change over time that becomes an inconsistency.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 03, 2018, 10:30:54 AM
p82 "At long last dawn broke."
p83 "As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search."
p83 "The most striking thing about this is we were all alone."
This history is problematic for me. I have been out in Luz around dawn on multiple occasions, and never once have I experienced such emptiness.
It is a time when the older ex-pats get an early morning stroll in. It is a time when the dog-walkers socialise on the beach. It is a time when the câmara workers clear the front up before the majority of early morning ex-pats/tourists mess it up again. It is a time when the rubbish lorries are trying to clear central bins in Luz before traffic makes it harder. It is a time when the early-morning cafés are setting up for business. If the Habana ever gets its webcam working properly again, you can check when its set-up squad goes into work. I've seen them active before dawn.
It is a very sociable time. It is considered extremely rude to not exchange conversation with these early morning people. It is almost like a club - we are the owners of the madrugada (dawn, early morning).
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2018, 10:36:25 AM
It would be up to OG to follow this up. The armchair detectives just don't have enough information. Everyone there is a potential suspect and if their statements change over time that becomes an inconsistency.
That's if the statements do change but if we do not know how accurate the first statements, are we cannot be sure of any change
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2018, 10:38:17 AM
It would be up to OG to follow this up. The armchair detectives just don't have enough information. Everyone there is a potential suspect and if their statements change over time that becomes an inconsistency.
I would be inclined to think that the present investigation has progressed well beyond 2007 and early 2008. The information to hand in those early years was checked out by Scotland Yard investigators and those of the Policia Judiciaria independent of each other, each discovering gaps in the investigation.
Which is precisely what cold case reviews are set up to ascertain.
They interviewed those who had not been interviewed at the time and I am sure these interviews were cross referenced with existing ones.
I have no doubt that the present investigation centres on the here and now. I am uneasy about any question being raised regarding any named individual. It is inappropriate and I think potentially libellous, for us who do not have the big picture of eleven years of police work to make anything of people whose only 'crime' was to be present in one capacity or another in Luz when Madeleine vanished.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on May 03, 2018, 11:17:56 AM
I would be inclined to think that the present investigation has progressed well beyond 2007 and early 2008. The information to hand in those early years was checked out by Scotland Yard investigators and those of the Policia Judiciaria independent of each other, each discovering gaps in the investigation.
Which is precisely what cold case reviews are set up to ascertain.
They interviewed those who had not been interviewed at the time and I am sure these interviews were cross referenced with existing ones.
I have no doubt that the present investigation centres on the here and now. I am uneasy about any question being raised regarding any named individual. It is inappropriate and I think potentially libellous, for us who do not have the big picture of eleven years of police work to make anything of people whose only 'crime' was to be present in one capacity or another in Luz when Madeleine vanished.
After so many years of investigative effort, one would certainly hope so.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 03, 2018, 12:16:04 PM
I would be inclined to think that the present investigation has progressed well beyond 2007 and early 2008. The information to hand in those early years was checked out by Scotland Yard investigators and those of the Policia Judiciaria independent of each other, each discovering gaps in the investigation.
Which is precisely what cold case reviews are set up to ascertain.
They interviewed those who had not been interviewed at the time and I am sure these interviews were cross referenced with existing ones.
I have no doubt that the present investigation centres on the here and now. I am uneasy about any question being raised regarding any named individual. It is inappropriate and I think potentially libellous, for us who do not have the big picture of eleven years of police work to make anything of people whose only 'crime' was to be present in one capacity or another in Luz when Madeleine vanished.
Who was the man standing watching the McCann family? (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/TOJIgQB7LnI/AAAAAAAAQB0/bVaJZlIJUUM/s320/madeleine%252520mccann%252520robert%252520murat.jpg)
The origin of the photo is discussed here http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/SKY_27_05_07.htm
Some have suggested that the person was Raj Balu but I doubted that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2018, 12:31:40 PM
Who was the man standing watching the McCann family? (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/TOJIgQB7LnI/AAAAAAAAQB0/bVaJZlIJUUM/s320/madeleine%252520mccann%252520robert%252520murat.jpg)
The origin of the photo is discussed here http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/SKY_27_05_07.htm
Some have suggested that the person was Raj Balu but I doubted that.
I've no idea who he is ... but, in my opinion, you can bet your bottom dollar the the PJ and SY do.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2018, 12:49:15 PM
p83 "As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search."
p83 "The most striking thing about this is we were all alone."
This history is problematic for me. I have been out in Luz around dawn on multiple occasions, and never once have I experienced such emptiness.
It is a time when the older ex-pats get an early morning stroll in. It is a time when the dog-walkers socialise on the beach. It is a time when the câmara workers clear the front up before the majority of early morning ex-pats/tourists mess it up again. It is a time when the rubbish lorries are trying to clear central bins in Luz before traffic makes it harder. It is a time when the early-morning cafés are setting up for business. If the Habana ever gets its webcam working properly again, you can check when its set-up squad goes into work. I've seen them active before dawn.
It is a very sociable time. It is considered extremely rude to not exchange conversation with these early morning people. It is almost like a club - we are the owners of the madrugada (dawn, early morning).
I'm not sure if my reply registered.... There may be other explanations for this... Kate said they searched and I see no reason to disbelieve her
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 03, 2018, 12:56:32 PM
I'm not sure if my reply registered.... There may be other explanations for this... Kate said they searched and I see no reason to disbelieve her
Certainly the night of Madeleine's disappearance would have been unusual for PdL so that could affect the activity the next morning too. There were people still searching IMO but just not seen by the McCanns. Certainly not as many as earlier in the morning.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 03, 2018, 02:04:35 PM
snipped - In the initial stage of the search, devote your time to providing information to and answering questions from investigators. Once you discover that your child is missing, you will desperately want to help with the search. You may, in fact, wonder how you possibly can stand by and let others look for your child. But the reality is that in most instances, the best use of your energy is not on the physical search itself. Rather, you need to provide information to and answer questions from investigators and to be at home in the event your child calls. The checklist Gathering Evidence in the First 48 Hours identifies the most crucial pieces of background information and evidence that law enforcement will need in the search for your child.
The answering questions bit went really well didn't it? On the advice of her lawyer, Dr Healey exploited her right to refuse to answer the 49 very simple questions put to her by the investigating officers. Why was she so afraid to cooperate with the police who after all were merely trying to exclude them as suspects.
Is it any wonder so many people think her complicit in her daughter's disappearance.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on May 03, 2018, 04:34:52 PM
A reminder to all members as we approach the bank holiday weekend.
Comments should be appropriate to the thread header or opening post. Spamming, nitpicking, goading, abuse, put-downs or any other activity contrary to the forum rules will attract sanctions.
This has traditionally been an emotional time for posters on the Madeleine McCann board so please consider carefully what you post before pressing the post button. Civility costs nothing!
Please treat other users with respect regardless of their views. TY
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 05, 2018, 09:35:48 PM
There is still too much contradiction with regards to the searching. Kate talking about eerie silent them being alone searching, and SIL telling about the early morning bustle (which I do believe I have witnessed this many times in resorts- especially towel wrestling with the Germans for the deck chair...:)) too many things just do not add up at all from the TAPAS story.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2018, 09:55:52 PM
There is still too much contradiction with regards to the searching. Kate talking about eerie silent them being alone searching, and SIL telling about the early morning bustle (which I do believe I have witnessed this many times in resorts- especially towel wrestling with the Germans for the deck chair...:)) too many things just do not add up at all from the TAPAS story.
Again.. In your opinion... IMO I find nothing that makes me doubt the McCann's version of events
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on May 05, 2018, 11:35:34 PM
There is still too much contradiction with regards to the searching. Kate talking about eerie silent them being alone searching, and SIL telling about the early morning bustle (which I do believe I have witnessed this many times in resorts- especially towel wrestling with the Germans for the deck chair...:)) too many things just do not add up at all from the TAPAS story.
And do you think that the people that SIL tells us about going out early, would be out in numbers on a cool blustery morning? And at the very first light?
If any were out so early, if they were unaware of Madeleine having gone missing ... and unaware of just who the couple were, do you think that they would have taken note of them ?
Just a couple of strangers, after all.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 06, 2018, 12:17:56 AM
And do you think that the people that SIL tells us about going out early, would be out in numbers on a cool blustery morning? And at the very first light?
If any were out so early, if they were unaware of Madeleine having gone missing ... and unaware of just who the couple were, do you think that they would have taken note of them ?
Just a couple of strangers, after all.
Kate and Gerry allegedly saw no one.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: sadie on May 06, 2018, 01:01:28 AM
And I wonder if all these people that you talk about are out at the absolute crack of dawn as Kate and Gerry were?
Most people do not rise before daylight. They then have a cuppa, a shower and get dressed and possibly a glance at the news on TV. In unpleasant conditions they probably would not venture out until it got a little warmer.
Kate and Gerry were searching at the crack of dawn. I doubt they showered etc, first and they had a purpose. They didn't hang about.
AIMO
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 06, 2018, 12:39:09 PM
And do you think that the people that SIL tells us about going out early, would be out in numbers on a cool blustery morning? And at the very first light?
If any were out so early, if they were unaware of Madeleine having gone missing ... and unaware of just who the couple were, do you think that they would have taken note of them ?
Just a couple of strangers, after all.
Sadie are you seriously suggesting a child going missing was not discussed at all among workers/staff? And are you seriously suggesting it was too cold for delivery drivers and street cleaners to go to work that morning?
I do admire your attempt to write off people who do not believe in your theory or the McCanns story, but we have to be realistic about these things.
There is NO evidence of Kate and Gerry going out early to search without being seen by anyone, and there is no evidence that early morning workers took that morning off work because it was a bit cold...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on May 06, 2018, 12:40:09 PM
All witnesses are unreliable as they cannot be relied upon to have faultless memories. The Smiths, Mrs Fenn, Amaral, the Tapas waiters, the nannys all of them we can find statements or words that seem contradictory or odd. Kate didn't "forget" that she searched the night Madeleine went missing, she wasn't asked if she searched the night Madeleine went missing, she was asked if she felt she should be joining in with the organised searches in the days after Madeleine went missing. This has been pointed out numerous times before.
The key question for me is what actual searching did the parents take part in on day two onwards?
Many Luz residents took time off work and gave up their free time to search for Madeleine. It is just a tad disingenuous for anyone to now attempt to play down those efforts.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2018, 12:49:23 PM
The key question for me is what actual searching did the parents take part in on day two onwards?
Many Luz residents took time off work and gave up their free time to search for Madeleine. It is just a tad disingenuous for anyone to now attempt to play down those efforts.
I'm not aware of anyone trying to do that.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2018, 12:53:37 PM
Sadie are you seriously suggesting a child going missing was not discussed at all among workers/staff? And are you seriously suggesting it was too cold for delivery drivers and street cleaners to go to work that morning?
I do admire your attempt to write off people who do not believe in your theory or the McCanns story, but we have to be realistic about these things.
There is NO evidence of Kate and Gerry going out early to search without being seen by anyone, and there is no evidence that early morning workers took that morning off work because it was a bit cold...
As far as I'm aware the police did not ask people in the locale if they saw Kate and Gerry searching that morning, so the fact that there are no statements to that effect is not that surprising is it?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 06, 2018, 01:26:15 PM
And I wonder if all these people that you talk about are out at the absolute crack of dawn as Kate and Gerry were?
Most people do not rise before daylight. They then have a cuppa, a shower and get dressed and possibly a glance at the news on TV. In unpleasant conditions they probably would not venture out until it got a little warmer.
Kate and Gerry were searching at the crack of dawn. I doubt they showered etc, first and they had a purpose. They didn't hang about.
AIMO
I have explained what I have experienced at first light in Luz. I shall leave you to your speculation.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 06, 2018, 01:37:02 PM
The key question for me is what actual searching did the parents take part in on day two onwards?
Many Luz residents took time off work and gave up their free time to search for Madeleine. It is just a tad disingenuous for anyone to now attempt to play down those efforts.
Indeed John. This was relayed on live TV by Gerrys sister- no one was looking for Madeleine. they were left to look for her themselves ...and this was a swipe at the police who gave up free time .
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 06, 2018, 05:20:08 PM
As far as I'm aware the police did not ask people in the locale if they saw Kate and Gerry searching that morning, so the fact that there are no statements to that effect is not that surprising is it?
Some of the the police men state they saw Kate and Gerry out searching in the morning.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 07, 2018, 01:16:56 PM
Some of the the police men state they saw Kate and Gerry out searching in the morning.
They must have been hiding, because Kate said they saw no one. what were these police officers doing? munching on sardines more than likely..being lazy etc..
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Brietta on May 11, 2018, 11:18:18 AM
Kate and Gerry physically searched for as long as they were able and have continued searching for over eleven years in every other way imaginable. All while being roundly criticised in the vilest terms for their actions in doing that.
They have pulled off magnificently getting their aim realised of having the official search for Madeleine reinstated after a break of years during which they continued their search for her on their own. Currently Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria are searching for her.
I am at a loss to understand why those who question what searching Madeleine's parents did ... have been, right from the start, at pains to criticise almost every facet of the current search for her and criticise every penny spent.
Where is the logic?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 11, 2018, 06:51:16 PM
Kate and Gerry physically searched for as long as they were able and have continued searching for over eleven years in every other way imaginable. All while being roundly criticised in the vilest terms for their actions in doing that.
They have pulled off magnificently getting their aim realised of having the official search for Madeleine reinstated after a break of years during which they continued their search for her on their own. Currently Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria are searching for her.
I am at a loss to understand why those who question what searching Madeleine's parents did ... have been, right from the start, at pains to criticise almost every facet of the current search for her and criticise every penny spent.
Where is the logic?
Except that not once have they ever taken part in an organised police search for THEIR daughter. That to me frankly is really apalling. Had they stayed in Portugal and pursued the search for their daughter instead of hightailing it back home the moment things went against them it might have been a different story eleven years on.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2018, 06:57:53 PM
Except that not once have they ever taken part in an organised police search for THEIR daughter. That to me frankly is really apalling. Had they stayed in Portugal and pursued the search for their daughter instead of hightailing it back home the moment things went against them it might have been a different story eleven years on.
We've covered this too... If they stayed they may well have been subject to a miscarriage of justice and jailed... IMO and others opinion... I can't see them staying making a scrap of difference
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 11, 2018, 09:56:12 PM
Back on topic please.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 12, 2018, 01:02:45 PM
Weve covered this before...it's what generally happens in missing children cases
Absolutely untrue but unsurprising you claim otherwise. In most cases one or other parent goes out searching with the police in order to show solidarity with the volunteer searchers. The Needham case being the classic example of how parents of a missing toddler should behave but then the Needhams don't have close friends in Government or a multi pound fund to play with.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 12, 2018, 02:02:24 PM
And it's unsurprising you making the claims you are. We have been through it before... And it is normal procedure and the same as as happened in other cases of missing children with the parents not joining in the organised searches
It's on this thread
Your idea of normal is inaccurate. When a child goes missing both parents are interviewed by police, thereafter one parent (usually the man) goes out to talk to volunteers and help in the search. Gerry McCann made no such effort when Maddie disappeared choosing instead to endear himself with the media something which certainly shouldn't have happened. The McCanns have admitted that they never physically searched for their missing child after that first morning, something which many people find bizarre.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: John on May 12, 2018, 05:29:14 PM
Could we stay on topic please with less bickering. TY
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2018, 05:44:48 PM
Your idea of normal is inaccurate. When a child goes missing both parents are interviewed by police, thereafter one parent (usually the man) goes out to talk to volunteers and help in the search. Gerry McCann made no such effort when Maddie disappeared choosing instead to endear himself with the media something which certainly shouldn't have happened. The McCanns have admitted that they never physically searched for their missing child after that first morning, something which many people find bizarre.
my idea of normal is not inaccrate but as John has asked for bickering to stop perhaps we should leave it there
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2018, 05:45:46 PM
i think we have established taht the Mccanns did physically search...not enough for some...but perfectly reasonable for others
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2018, 06:00:40 PM
snipped - In the initial stage of the search, devote your time to providing information to and answering questions from investigators. Once you discover that your child is missing, you will desperately want to help with the search. You may, in fact, wonder how you possibly can stand by and let others look for your child. But the reality is that in most instances, the best use of your energy is not on the physical search itself. Rather, you need to provide information to and answer questions from investigators and to be at home in the event your child calls. The checklist Gathering Evidence in the First 48 Hours identifies the most crucial pieces of background information and evidence that law enforcement will need in the search for your child.
I think it's been accepted they searched...but if you want to disagree it's not important
So can we get this sorted once and for all.
*where did they search? *For how long? *Did they search areas which were not searched? *How did they know which areas had or had not been search? *why bother searching places already searched- alone as a couple, and not with some of the tapas?
*knowing their daughter was abducted did they hope to find the abductor with their daughter?
* can they really claim the abductor would still be in the vicinity?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 14, 2018, 01:07:14 PM
*where did they search? *For how long? *Did they search areas which were not searched? *How did they know which areas had or had not been search? *why bother searching places already searched- alone as a couple, and not with some of the tapas?
*knowing their daughter was abducted did they hope to find the abductor with their daughter?
* can they really claim the abductor would still be in the vicinity?
It's in Kate's book...
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2018, 02:00:47 PM
*where did they search? *For how long? *Did they search areas which were not searched? *How did they know which areas had or had not been search? *why bother searching places already searched- alone as a couple, and not with some of the tapas?
*knowing their daughter was abducted did they hope to find the abductor with their daughter?
* can they really claim the abductor would still be in the vicinity?
Very good points MTI. To be fair though, if they weren't involved in Maddie's disappearance then they would have found it extremely difficult to sit in an apartment feeling helpless and despondent at their stupidity. In the pitch darkness there wasn't much they could do but as dawn broke they must have experienced the inevitable strong need to go outside and search around for themselves with the thought that Maddie might respond to their calls. Any panic stricken parents would want to do the same thing. IMO they then should have taken part in the official searches which had been organised around the town but that never happened.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on May 14, 2018, 02:13:14 PM
Thus, at around 9pm, her husband went to the apartment to make sure the twins, as well as Madeleine, were OK.....At the same time, one of the group of friends, Russell, went to see his children, without checking on the interviewee's children. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Her memory of the previous evening wasn't correct after less than 24 hours. You appear to expect her memory of the events to be perfect after four years.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2018, 08:28:03 PM
Thus, at around 9pm, her husband went to the apartment to make sure the twins, as well as Madeleine, were OK.....At the same time, one of the group of friends, Russell, went to see his children, without checking on the interviewee's children. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Her memory of the previous evening wasn't correct after less than 24 hours. You appear to expect her memory of the events to be perfect after four years.
Interesting point - Kate thinks ROB went at the time not Jane.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: jassi on May 14, 2018, 08:32:01 PM
The first two timelines are not clear about the combined visit by Matt and ROB either. The written timeline produced by the Tapas 9 was later than Kate's statement.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: G-Unit on May 14, 2018, 09:49:14 PM
The first two timelines are not clear about the combined visit by Matt and ROB either. The written timeline produced by the Tapas 9 was later than Kate's statement.
In my opinion the discussions between the group meant that no-one really gave their own unadulterated recollections.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2018, 10:04:57 PM
Thus, at around 9pm, her husband went to the apartment to make sure the twins, as well as Madeleine, were OK.....At the same time, one of the group of friends, Russell, went to see his children, without checking on the interviewee's children. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Her memory of the previous evening wasn't correct after less than 24 hours. You appear to expect her memory of the events to be perfect after four years.
This is Kate's recollection from the 4th. Could it be correct? Whereas you say she "wasn't correct after less than 24 hours". Is there something unexplained about when ROB went back to their apartment?
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 14, 2018, 10:22:43 PM
In my opinion the discussions between the group meant that no-one really gave their own unadulterated recollections.
I agree. If they had all been taken to a police station immediately and questioned independently, the whole story would have been very different in my opinion. They did collaborate to make a time line fit with their story.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2018, 10:29:29 PM
I agree. If they had all been taken to a police station immediately and questioned independently, the whole story would have been very different in my opinion. They did collaborate to make a time line fit with their story.
Even the person you live with can remember events differently than you do, and you need to go back over it to work out what really happened. So getting together is a bit like a reconstruction. Was someone seeding information that really didn't happen? That is what we'd have to consider.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 14, 2018, 10:31:10 PM
Very good points MTI. To be fair though, if they weren't involved in Maddie's disappearance then they would have found it extremely difficult to sit in an apartment feeling helpless and despondent at their stupidity. In the pitch darkness there wasn't much they could do but as dawn broke they must have experienced the inevitable strong need to go outside and search around for themselves with the thought that Maddie might respond to their calls. Any panic stricken parents would want to do the same thing. IMO they then should have taken part in the official searches which had been organised around the town but that never happened.
Any grief stricken parent would indeed go out to search, after giving the police an account and description. I just find it a tad unbelievable they would go and search an area which was already searched, and why bemoan about no body searching and them being all alone- was no 0ne to get sleep at all- just search till they drop? they really are a couple of prima donnas IMO , wanting everything done their way, at their pace, when they say...None of their behaviour makes any kind of sense at all.
Title: Re: So what actual searching was there?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2018, 11:10:47 PM
Any grief stricken parent would indeed go out to search, after giving the police an account and description. I just find it a tad unbelievable they would go and search an area which was already searched, and why bemoan about no body searching and them being all alone- was no 0ne to get sleep at all- just search till they drop? they really are a couple of prima donnas IMO , wanting everything done their way, at their pace, when they say...None of their behaviour makes any kind of sense at all.
It could be Kate saying in action: "you lost her you find her!". So Kate doesn't have to help find Madeleine for nothing she did contributed to Madeleine going missing.