McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[sadie]

But not the sighting of Madeleine's father. SY were more willing to publicise the E-Fits of the Smiths sighting than the McCanns themselves were. Bizarrely enough. What a curious anomaly.
Oh well, it's probably not important.

What sighting of Madeleines father?

If you are libelling Gerry as a candidate to match the efits provided by the Smiths, then get real, WS.

Anyone with an ounce of understanding of portraiture, will tell you that the pertinent efit is much more like a criminal cop, now in jail, than it is like Gerry.



Same as with Madeleine being carried on the wo/mans back in Zinat, Rif Mountains, Morocco.
 
The original Clara Torres photo is nothing like Bushra except she has fair hair .   The original Clara Torres photographed little girl is Madeleine.


The amazing thing is that a little girl who is the image of Joana Cipriano in several ways, and of the correct age range, is in the same photograph.

Two missing girls on the same photo !!!!



And, several years ago, I posted an article about European Business men keeping harems of children in Morocco.   Several of you will have seen this article, but I am expecting that it has been wiped.

Will be interesting to check, it has alraedy been wiped off Google browser.


   Hmm?

[sadie]

Sadie quote

There are a number of things, happenings, that have been gone over before ad nauseam

Some are quite small but collectively they make quite a statement.

Suggest that you read back ... but know that you won't.

Ok, you have challenged this WS


Just a few pointers, clues for the discerning. who are willing to consider.[/u]

1.  Witness Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying off with a ?sleeping girl who matched Madeleines description.

2.  Witness Kate saw the open window. 
     Witness Matt saw a strange greenish light coming from the (closed curtained) shutter area.  Was the shutter raised already and the sickly yellowish street light mixed its colour with the blue curtains, making green?  Had Madeleine already gone ? 
I think that directed from the balcony opposite, the watcher thinking that GErry was gone completely, ordered the go ahead immediately.   Then too late, Witness Jane appeared.  The director of operations was already in the getaway car by then, which he could access by the rear garden of the balcony and flat block
 
3.  Several Witnesses saw a certain man watching 5A.  One Witness, Tasmin Silence, saw him on two seperate days.       He was WATCHING 5A.   In fact, the once he was really close up, leaning against the garden wall and peering in.

4)  There were fag ends on the balcony of the block immediately opposite 5A.   
From this balcony a watcher/abduction director could see the area immediately before both front and rear doors and to  the routes up to and away from 5A.  He could see all around, both roads.  In fact, apert from southwards on the eastern pavement and little car park opposite Tapas reception, he could see everywhere including the Tapas restaurant.  I believe he could see them eating.
And he could see straight into 5A and see anyone walking towards, or away, from Madeleines bedroom, and the front door and the patio doors, because the siting room light was left on.

He himself could vanish into the shadow of Block 6, which was cast by the street lamp obliquely outside.    Or just duck down behind the balcony.   What an amazing viewing point

5)   A limousine,which IIRC was black, was seen driving up by Baptista Supermarket at the pertinent time that Kate and Gerry suddenly appeared out of 5A en route for the restaurant.   This limousine suddenly made a three point turn and drove off away from the viewing area.    ?Frightened of being seen by Kate and Gerry?   For a couple to have noticed this, the three point turn must have been very hurried and rough IMO.  Maybe panicky?

6)   Parents who had criminally vanished their own child would NOT lobby, as the Mccanns did, for Scotland Yard to be brought in.



THINK about it WS.   Had you done it, would YOU bring in Scotland Yard ?

[Wonderfulspam]

Fag ends, allegedly open windows, sightings of men & there's no way the McCanns could have dunnit?

If that's the abduction evidence then on second thoughts, yes, I suppose it is little wonder really why the three investigative forces can't solve the case.

[barrier]

Sadie quote
Ok, you have challenged this WS


Just a few pointers, clues for the discerning. who are willing to consider.[/u]

1.  Witness Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying off with a ?sleeping girl who matched Madeleines description.

2.  Witness Kate saw the open window. 
     Witness Matt saw a strange greenish light coming from the (closed curtained) shutter area.  Was the shutter raised already and the sickly yellowish street light mixed its colour with the blue curtains, making green?  Had Madeleine already gone ? 
I think that directed from the balcony opposite, the watcher thinking that GErry was gone completely, ordered the go ahead immediately.   Then too late, Witness Jane appeared.  The director of operations was already in the getaway car by then, which he could access by the rear garden of the balcony and flat block
 
3.  Several Witnesses saw a certain man watching 5A.  One Witness, Tasmin Silence, saw him on two seperate days.       He was WATCHING 5A.   In fact, the once he was really close up, leaning against the garden wall and peering in.

4)  There were fag ends on the balcony of the block immediately opposite 5A.   
From this balcony a watcher/abduction director could see the area immediately before both front and rear doors and to  the routes up to and away from 5A.  He could see all around, both roads.  In fact, apert from southwards on the eastern pavement and little car park opposite Tapas reception, he could see everywhere including the Tapas restaurant.  I believe he could see them eating.
And he could see straight into 5A and see anyone walking towards, or away, from Madeleines bedroom, and the front door and the patio doors, because the siting room light was left on.

He himself could vanish into the shadow of Block 6, which was cast by the street lamp obliquely outside.    Or just duck down behind the balcony.   What an amazing viewing point

5)   A limousine,which IIRC was black, was seen driving up by Baptista Supermarket at the pertinent time that Kate and Gerry suddenly appeared out of 5A en route for the restaurant.   This limousine suddenly made a three point turn and drove off away from the viewing area.    ?Frightened of being seen by Kate and Gerry?   For a couple to have noticed this, the three point turn must have been very hurried and rough IMO.  Maybe panicky?

6)   Parents who had criminally vanished their own child would NOT lobby, as the Mccanns did, for Scotland Yard to be brought in.



THINK about it WS.   Had you done it, would YOU bring in Scotland Yard ?

Point 1 Sadie, SY are almost certain that the person seen by Tanner carrying a child was not the abductor, he went on to say the smith sighting where a man carrying a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine was the focus, who described the child Tanner saw  fitted a description of Madeleine ?

[Lace]

I wasn't thinking of any evidence in particular, I was just surprised that you said there was no evidence. Did you perhaps mean there wasn't any proof?

What evidence was there that the McCann's staged an abduction and hid Madeleine's ?

[Lace]

Proof of what?  That the McCanns never publicised the e-fits? Well, they didn't.

Proof that they were able to publicise the e-fits or was that it was down to Amaral to publicise them.

Do you remember the McCann's were paid a considerable sum because someone said they had withheld the e-fits,  you are repeating libel.

[Wonderfulspam]

Proof that they were able to publicise the e-fits or was that it was down to Amaral to publicise them.

Do you remember the McCann's were paid a considerable sum because someone said they had withheld the e-fits,  you are repeating libel.

No, I'm not. The McCanns never publicised the e-fits. That is a fact. They weren't in Kate's account of the truth or on their website. The e-fits were made long after Amaral, & The Times were threatened with legal action because their article could have been construed as the McCanns withholding the e-fits from the police. I'm alleging no such thing. I'm simply stating the fact that the McCanns never publicised the e-fits, because they didn't, you see.

[Wonderfulspam]

What evidence was there that the McCann's staged an abduction and hid Madeleine's ?

The total absence of evidence Madeleine was ever taken in a criminal act by a stranger.

[G-Unit]

What evidence was there that the McCann's staged an abduction and hid Madeleine's ?

That's a conclusion, a theory reached by some policemen based on the evidence they had collected. What the PJ really had was strong suspicions that they were not being told the truth because individual statements didn't add up and statements were changed. When the CSI dogs alerted only to areas, cars and clothing used only by the McCanns their suspicions were intensified and they made the couple arguidos because they needed to ask them questions the answers to which could lead to charges.

[G-Unit]

Proof that they were able to publicise the e-fits or was that it was down to Amaral to publicise them.

Do you remember the McCann's were paid a considerable sum because someone said they had withheld the e-fits,  you are repeating libel.

The McCanns could have publicised the e-fits had they wished, just as they publicised the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fit.
I don't think Amaral ever saw them, did he?

[Lace]

No, I'm not. The McCanns never publicised the e-fits. That is a fact. They weren't in Kate's account of the truth or on their website. The e-fits were made long after Amaral, & The Times were threatened with legal action because their article could have been construed as the McCanns withholding the e-fits from the police. I'm alleging no such thing. I'm simply stating the fact that the McCanns never publicised the e-fits, because they didn't, you see.

In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

[Eleanor]

That's a conclusion, a theory reached by some policemen based on the evidence they had collected. What the PJ really had was strong suspicions that they were not being told the truth because individual statements didn't add up and statements were changed. When the CSI dogs alerted only to areas, cars and clothing used only by the McCanns their suspicions were intensified and they made the couple arguidos because they needed to ask them questions the answers to which could lead to charges.

But didn't lead to Charges.  Why was that do you think?

[Lace]

That's a conclusion, a theory reached by some policemen based on the evidence they had collected. What the PJ really had was strong suspicions that they were not being told the truth because individual statements didn't add up and statements were changed. When the CSI dogs alerted only to areas, cars and clothing used only by the McCanns their suspicions were intensified and they made the couple arguidos because they needed to ask them questions the answers to which could lead to charges.

You call that evidence?

[Eleanor]

The McCanns could have publicised the e-fits had they wished, just as they publicised the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fit.
I don't think Amaral ever saw them, did he?

Did he?

[sadie]

Sadie quote
Ok, you have challenged this WS


Just a few pointers, clues for the discerning. who are willing to consider.[/u]

1.  Witness Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying off with a ?sleeping girl who matched Madeleines description.

2.  Witness Kate saw the open window. 
     Witness Matt saw a strange greenish light coming from the (closed curtained) shutter area.  Was the shutter raised already and the sickly yellowish street light mixed its colour with the blue curtains, making green?  Had Madeleine already gone ? 
I think that directed from the balcony opposite, the watcher thinking that GErry was gone completely, ordered the go ahead immediately.   Then too late, Witness Jane appeared.  The director of operations was already in the getaway car by then, which he could access by the rear garden of the balcony and flat block
 
3.  Several Witnesses saw a certain man watching 5A.  One Witness, Tasmin Silence, saw him on two seperate days.       He was WATCHING 5A.   In fact, the once he was really close up, leaning against the garden wall and peering in.

4)  There were fag ends on the balcony of the block immediately opposite 5A.   
From this balcony a watcher/abduction director could see the area immediately before both front and rear doors and to  the routes up to and away from 5A.  He could see all around, both roads.  In fact, apert from southwards on the eastern pavement and little car park opposite Tapas reception, he could see everywhere including the Tapas restaurant.  I believe he could see them eating.
And he could see straight into 5A and see anyone walking towards, or away, from Madeleines bedroom, and the front door and the patio doors, because the siting room light was left on.

He himself could vanish into the shadow of Block 6, which was cast by the street lamp obliquely outside.    Or just duck down behind the balcony.   What an amazing viewing point

5)   A limousine,which IIRC was black, was seen driving up by Baptista Supermarket at the pertinent time that Kate and Gerry suddenly appeared out of 5A en route for the restaurant.   This limousine suddenly made a three point turn and drove off away from the viewing area.    ?Frightened of being seen by Kate and Gerry?   For a couple to have noticed this, the three point turn must have been very hurried and rough IMO.  Maybe panicky?

6)   Parents who had criminally vanished their own child would NOT lobby, as the Mccanns did, for Scotland Yard to be brought in.



THINK about it WS.   Had you done it, would YOU bring in Scotland Yard ?

Furthermore, three countries Police Forces believe that it was a stranger abduction.

They all agree on that.   A stranger abduction WS