It is a possibility.
I think its possible Madeleine is still alive, living somewhere with a new family.
Of course it is possible. Too much planning went into her abduction for it to be a hit and miss affair. Small children fetch good money for a family prepared to pay. Even an official adoption costs money, and takes ages.
What a lovely idea but I can’t think of one case where a girl Madeleine’s age has been taken in order to be assimilated into a new family. Can you ?There is always the first.
What a lovely idea but I can’t think of one case where a girl Madeleine’s age has been taken in order to be assimilated into a new family. Can you ?
Why were any of these children abducted? The cases don't even make the news here in UK.
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2019/02/266805/moroccan-police-kidnapped-3-year-old/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201901/09/WS5c354a55a31068606745f9c6.html
3 year old boy abducted from market & raised by new parents.
Was there worldwide media involved in this story ?
No there wasn't, just as there wouldn't have been if the PJ had had their way. IMO Madeleine's case would have faded into relative obscurity without the media. Morocco appears to have a child-abduction problem & if the report above is accurate, any foreign child trafficked to there wouldn't have much hope of being located by the authorities.
IMO most people are oblivious to the true extent of child trafficking (for whatever purpose) & the number of babies stolen for illegal adoption is frightening. All those babies don't end up dead - they are clearly wanted by prospective parents able to afford something otherwise denied them. However, market demand is not restricted to babies, as shown for instance in Netherlands/INDIA example here:- https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2007/05/stolen_boy_may_be_one_of_dozen/
If there are plenty of abductable children in Morocco why would they come to an out of season European resort to abduct a child who they must have known would generate publicity ?Perhaps they wanted a blonde child who spoke English? Perhaps they intended to take her somewhere they believed the publicity wouldn’t reach?
If there are plenty of abductable children in Morocco why would they come to an out of season European resort to abduct a child who they must have known would generate publicity ?
Possibly for someone living in the area at the time. And after The Cipriano debacle someone might have thought that The McCanns would get the blame.
Then why not abduct a Moroccan child ? As Bushra proves there are small blonde girls with Madeleine’s ‘look’ in remote villages in Morocco. Why not abduct one of them ?
Then why not abduct a Moroccan child ? As Bushra proves there are small blonde girls with Madeleine’s ‘look’ in remote villages in Morocco. Why not abduct one of them ?
If the persons wanting a child were living locally then it could have been easier, rather than looking in Morocco. Who do you contact in Morocco? It's miles away.
So they live locally, abduct a child locally....and ? Still live locally with Madeleine? Or move away in rather a hurry ? Don’t you think the police would have checked this ?
So they live locally, abduct a child locally....and ? Still live locally with Madeleine? Or move away in rather a hurry ? Don’t you think the police would have checked this ?Abducted and smuggled out of the country that night en route to her final destination, hundreds, or thousands of miles away.
Moved away in a hurry, probably. But the people who have Madeleine might not have been the people who abducted her. And since The Police don't seem to have checked much at all, this could have gone unnoticed.
But SY will have. What do you think are the chances of this couple evading the law for 12 years and the efforts of 3 police investigations?
I don't think they have.
So you think OG has spent 8 years trying to find this couple ?
Something like that.
And the burglar theory ? What of that ?
No, I don't believe that.
So you think OG has spent 8 years trying to find this couple ?You believe OG have spent the last 8 years trying to find any evidence against the McCanns. Which is more plausible, seriously ?
But SY did...or so Rowley said. Are they looking for this elusive couple and burglars ?
Do you think it could be possible that burglars were employed to abduct Madeleine as they had ways of entering the apartment?
Do you think it could be possible that burglars were employed to abduct Madeleine as they had ways of entering the apartment?
Do you think it could be possible that burglars were employed to abduct Madeleine as they had ways of entering the apartment?
This makes sense. It was all very well planned, with a touch of daring. Just like Burglars. In and Out in no time at all.
IMO Madeleine was taken by a burglar or two. It was a wrong burglary. He (or they) killed her and disposed of the corpse the very same night (3 to 4 May 2007). By the way, I continue waiting to know why José Carlos and Ricardo were discarded.
Isn't that a school of thought from certain PJ policeman that the abduction was staged,in your case to look like a burglary,who'd have ever thunk it, some would be in agreement with him.
IMO Madeleine was taken by a burglar or two. It was a wrong burglary. He (or they) killed her and disposed of the corpse the very same night (3 to 4 May 2007). By the way, I continue waiting to know why José Carlos and Ricardo were discarded.
Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said the group had all been ruled out of the inquiry, Operation Grange, which was set up in 2011 by then prime minister David Cameron, after coming under pressure to act from this newspaper and Kate and Gerry McCann.
What of the burglaries which had taken place in the Mark Warner apartments? Don't you think a competent if not a certain policeman might have given some thought to them ... particularly the ones which had occurred in the building where Madeleine was staying https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/madeleine-mccann-abducted-during-botched-burglary/
With respect Heriberto, I am surprised by your suggestion. Burglars don't normally steal children and they certainly aren't murderers. If there was such a person in Luz I think we would know about it by now.
When you say José Carlos and Ricardo were discarded, what do you mean exactly?
Then that would make them kidnappers not burglars.
Yeah and these alleged burglars went in and half inched Madeleine and lo and behold had a client already lined up for her,beggars belief.
What of the burglaries which had taken place in the Mark Warner apartments? Don't you think a competent if not a certain policeman might have given some thought to them ... particularly the ones which had occurred in the building where Madeleine was staying https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/madeleine-mccann-abducted-during-botched-burglary/
Yeah and these alleged burglars went in and half inched Madeleine and lo and behold had a client already lined up for her,beggars belief.
No it doesn't. This all too possible.
They were never going to admit to it, were they. But I believe that this is where the answer lies.
Innocent men accused as Madeleine McCann inquiry went wrong
Yeah there is a all load of case files where a brit girl randomly on holiday in a Portuguese resort with her parents gets half inched ready for a potential client,seriously?
Well it certainly wren't the one's targeted by OG.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/798366/Madeleine-McCann-inquiry-suspects-innocent-accused
I seem to remember that The McCanns were cleared. But you don't believe that.
Fresh anguish for Madeleine McCann's parents as Portugal's supreme court insists they haven't been proved innocent over their daughter's death
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
Isn't that a school of thought from certain PJ policeman that the abduction was staged,in your case to look like a burglary,who'd have ever thunk it, some would be in agreement with him.
I don't see how it was well planned. If the family were watched then an anductor or burglar would know that the patio doors were left unlocked. It would take a couple of seconds to go in that way. Once in, a quick check of the front door would have revealed an easy exit route.. The open shutters and window weren't necessary in my opinion.
Yeah and these alleged burglars went in and half inched Madeleine and lo and behold had a client already lined up for her,beggars belief.
As you understand we started with a full-sized murder team of 30 officers, that was a standard
operating approach at the time.
I seem to remember a court in Portugal ruled no such thing,cite for different please.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
Can any one explain what (a initial murder squad set up as) OG would be investigating if Madeleine was alive?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8138.msg400450#msg400450
I seem to remember that The McCanns were cleared.
I seem to remember a court in Portugal ruled no such thing,cite for different please.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
These three men haven't been declared Innocent either.
What has loads of case files got to do with this? Once would have been enough if someone was in the market for a four year old girl child with fair coloured hair and relatively good breeding. Madeleine could have been worth a few bob to the right people.
I seem to remember that The McCanns were cleared. But you don't believe that. So I guess that you choose who to believe and who not. This doesn't make your opinion very reliable.
Children and dogs - two of many hazards burglars will try to avoid at all costs.
If these 'burglars' did any kind of reconnaissance they would have gone elsewhere - doors open or not.
As for burglars hired to kidnap.......pffft. It's a paradigm shift for a petty pilferer to go to child abductor.
They don't even know what if any crime was committed so I doubt anyone has been cleared.
The mccanns were suspects... Now they are not...there is no real chance of them being involved... They have been cleared
The mccanns were suspects... Now they are not...there is no real chance of them being involved... They have been cleared
The McCanns have not been cleared.
The McCanns have not been cleared.If the McCanns have not been cleared then neither has Murat or any of the other arguidos in this case.
yes they have ...they are no longer suspects and theres no evidence against them...the interin report suggested they were involved...that report has been overuled...binned
A lack of evidence of involvement is not the same as evidence of non-involvement.
Difficult for some to accept..
I seem to remember that The McCanns were cleared.
As a senior mod,isn't it rather incumbent of you to provide a cite to that effect notwithstanding the supreme court judgement.
A lack of evidence of involvement is not the same as evidence of non-involvement.In which case Murat and all the other arguidos have not been cleared and may be involved, right?
Difficult for some to accept a supreme court says no such thing.
They don't even know what if any crime was committed so I doubt anyone has been cleared.They know what crime wasn't committed
The Supreme Court of Portugal is nothing to write home about.
How about the Archiving Report which can be found in the PJ files ???
The Supreme Court of Portugal is nothing to write home about.
Pointless the ECHR route is then.
Difficult for some to accept..
Don't know about that ... perhaps it is all in the understanding of exactly what it was that the Prosecutors concluded when dropping all legal restrictions against the chosen arguidos.
What of it? nothing much to write home about.
Don't know about that ... perhaps it is all in the understanding of exactly what it was that the Prosecutors concluded when dropping all legal restrictions against the chosen arguidos.
Madeleine McCann files: Portuguese prosecutors criticise police
Portuguese prosecutors have fiercely criticised the country's police for failing to uncover any clues over Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
By Caroline Gammell in Portimao 12:09PM BST 05 Aug 2008
Detectives' inability even to establish whether the toddler is alive or dead epitomised the inquiry's shortcomings, said public prosecutors Jose de Magalhaes and Joao Melchior Gomes.
The case against Kate and Gerry McCann, both 40, was dropped last month after it was decided that there was insufficient evidence against the couple.
...
The prosecutors said despite the huge manhunt and inquiry, little had been achieved.
"No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances (of Madeleine's disappearance).
"Including, and most dramatically, establishing whether she is alive or dead, which seems more probable."
...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2504246/Madeleine-McCann-files-Portuguese-prosecutors-criticise-police.html
Which brings us right back round to where we should be bearing in mind that the discussion on this thread asks the question of whether or not Madeleine McCann is still alive ... raising the on topic question of who it was who declared her dead without a shred of evidence to support that hypothesis as stated by the Portuguese Prosecutors?
They know what crime wasn't committed
(&^&
Yeah they know there was no abduction from bed by via a window! everythig else is still on the table!
Are you spoiling for a fight? If so, take care.
No I don't need to 'fight'. All this is evidenced! No one is looking for 'tannerman' and SY are looking at 'woke and wandered'. says it all really.
No I don't need to 'fight'. All this is evidenced! No one is looking for 'tannerman' and SY are looking at 'woke and wandered'. says it all really.Can you provide a cite for SY know Madeleine wasn’t abducted please .
The mccanns were suspects... Now they are not...there is no real chance of them being involved... They have been cleared
Can you provide a cite for SY know Madeleine wasn’t abducted please .
Which brings us right back round to where we should be bearing in mind that the discussion on this thread asks the question of whether or not Madeleine McCann is still alive ... raising the on topic question of who it was who declared her dead without a shred of evidence to support that hypothesis as stated by the Portuguese Prosecutors?
No one but no one from any investigation as said they have evidence she left 5a alive,the last person to offer a opinion was Rowley,(and I'd surmise it will be the last we hear),is that they have no evidence pointing to Madeleine being dead or alive.£11+ million buys that gem.
from the window.. hmm it is well documented in another thread go look.Please provide the cite.
Parents claim MBM was abducted via window you all argued how it was possible - rest my case.
from the window.. hmm it is well documented in another thread go look.
Parents claim MBM was abducted via window you all argued how it was possible - rest my case.
No one but no one from any investigation as said they have evidence she left 5a alive,the last person to offer a opinion was Rowley,(and I'd surmise it will be the last we hear),is that they have no evidence pointing to Madeleine being dead or alive.£11+ million buys that gem.The Portuguese public prosecutors Jose de Magalhaes and Joao Melchior Gomes declared that nothing which led to Madeleine's parents being declared arguidos stood up to close inspection.
The McCanns have not claimed that Madeleine was abducted via the window. They don't know exactly what happened.
According to Patricia Cameron on 4th May;I think an appropriate cite would not be panicked hearsay. Please provide a cite from either Kate or Gerry, I think that is how it is supposed to work. Thank you
“They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.”
Read more at: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/frantic-hunt-as-british-girl-feared-abducted-1-2454582
Why was the door included in their theory?
“The door was lying open.....
Read more at: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/frantic-hunt-as-british-girl-feared-abducted-1-2454582
The McCanns have not claimed that Madeleine was abducted via the window. They don't know exactly what happened.
The McCanns have not claimed that Madeleine was abducted via the window. They don't know exactly what happened.
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."
According to Mr Mitchell they did.
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/mccann-family-reverse-story-over-breakin-evidence-26327114.html
Slightly better than a hideho video I'll grant you ... but still nothing from the horse's mouth as they say. Must be something if they were so allegedly hungry for publicity they were never off the telly.
Where is it?
I think an appropriate cite would not be panicked hearsay. Please provide a cite from either Kate or Gerry, I think that is how it is supposed to work. Thank you
I can think of no reason why Gerry McCann's sister would misunderstand what he was thinking had happened.
In an almost incoherent, hysterical phone call letting her know Madeleine was missing and could not be found???
Really??? you can't think???
Now ... you really have amazed me.
Don't get this spokesman bit do you.
It's lucky they told Mt Mitchell a similar story after they'd calmed down a bit then isn't it?
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10595.msg514787#msg514787
They were determined to include that window one way or another it seems.
As were the 'real' police when they arrived on the scene and went about checking the eye witness testimony out instead of rubbishing it all in damaging leaks to the Portuguese press.(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/zzrebelo2d.jpg.w300h156.jpg)Paulo Rebelo opens the window to Maddie's bedroomPaulo Rebelo and his team consisting of two homicide inspectors, one from sexual abuse, another experienced in robberies and two specialists in technical analysis went over apartment 5A and reconstituted every possible scenario including entering via a window and passing a child sized bundle through.
So it seems the window does indeed have a place in the narrative ... but only to an investigation team competent enough to spend the time checking out each and every feasible scenario.
The window certainly did have a place in the narrative, a place that Rebelo and his competent investigative team wanted clarified in the reconstitution.
‘2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution’.
Why would Rebelo need clarification if he was convinced of the veracity of the parents statements ?
Any chance of a cite that the Met “knows” Madeleine was not abducted via the window?
The families chosen media... the one where 'friends of family' and 'close sources' all gather to chat..
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7820354/madeleine-mccann-looking-for-parents/
So if they are looking at woke and wandered they aint looking at no whooshing and jemmied shutters now are they?
The families chosen media... the one where 'friends of family' and 'close sources' all gather to chat..You have failed to provide a cite for the Met knowing that Madeleine was not abducted via the window.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7820354/madeleine-mccann-looking-for-parents/
So if they are looking at woke and wandered they aint looking at no whooshing and jemmied shutters now are they?
I find it quite instructive that there are those who take each and every unattributed tabloid release as gospel.
I find it quite instructive that there are those who take each and every unattributed tabloid release as gospel.
@)(++(*
does the SUN not tell the truth even when printing Kates Book.. yeah you are right we shouldn't believe anything they say. hahahaha
By the way ... did you happen to notice how big the window of Madeleine's bedroom actually is when Paulo Rebelo was standing beside it.
Who on earth do you suppose put the rumour about that a burglar couldn't get through it?
Quite obviously they were wrong about that ... particularly as one of Rebelo's team managed it fine and the burglars didn't seem to have problems with the other apartments they hit probably via the window as in Mrs Fenn's case, or by using a key.
Its known a pillow can be passed through a similar window.
Have to agree on the size of the window though.
"Details of the window of the bedroom from which the child disappeared where the non-existence of traces/clues of break-in/forced entry was verified." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
"After waiting at the restaurant table for five minutes, Dianne Webster went to the McCann's apartment where she entered the children's bedroom and saw Kate with the twins. Kate insisted on the fact that the window and shutters were open when she saw the children, Dianne went outside to see if she could raise the shutter from the outside and found it to be impossible." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
Yeah. No scuffmarks on the very white walls - no imprints on the bed next to the window - no fingerprints- well apart from Kates. *sigh* now that is what I call lack of evidence. But then they did change that story anyway.
Did the pj leave scuff marks on the white walls? How you could tell if there were imprints on that bed I do not know it was unmade and messy. Kate looked out the window. If I were an abductor I would wipe my fingerprints off.
Wiping prints? Gloves.
"With respect to the other bed next to the window in the children's bedroom he says that it showed no signs that anyone had put their feet on it, namely, dirt or shoe prints."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
So what was stopping the abductor from brushing the bed down?
So what was stopping the abductor from brushing the bed down?I wonder what happened to any forensic evidence collected from the reported burglaries at the holiday resort and from the accommodation entered by the man intent on abusing children while their parents slept?
I wonder what happened to any forensic evidence collected from the reported burglaries at the holiday resort and from the accommodation entered by the man intent on abusing children while their parents slept?What?
Did anyone bother?
What?
*%87
Are you still in denial about burglars and burglaries? Are you still in denial that an intruder assaulted children in their beds?Which reported burglaries?
Why would he do that and leave the window open?
To air the bed silly...
So this burglar got in through a tiny slit in a shutter- they were not working acording to Diane and she checked!. opened a window grabbed a child while holding her- he pulled out is cleaning kit and began to wash windows and make the bed.. Taking it to another level here @)(++(*
Which reported burglaries?
Which reported burglars?
Either explain what you are talking about, or horse manure is much more valuable.
*%87
Perhaps he was an obsessive cleaner. @)(++(*
For whatever your reasons may be I think you are being deliberately obtuse which lends absolutely nothing to any sort of intelligent discussion ... so in future feel free to wum any of my posts but don't expect any response ... I think life is far too short to play silly games.
The above clip amuses me greatly and lightens my mood when thinking about denial and is probably not one which Paul Luckman would really wish to have in his archive. 😝😝
The Portuguese public prosecutors Jose de Magalhaes and Joao Melchior Gomes declared that nothing which led to Madeleine's parents being declared arguidos stood up to close inspection.
Unfortunately, they came in after the main event. They were not on the scene when the initial investigation was being undertaken, they did not observe the witnesses first hand, they were not privy to all those pesky little details which never get written down. Those on the scene after a suspected crime is carried out will always be in the best position to arrive at an opinion as to what really went on.
I don't think Amaral did either.
Did what Brietta?He neither observed the crime scene or the witnesses first hand with the exception of seeing Murat outside his villa.
Unfortunately, they came in after the main event. They were not on the scene when the initial investigation was being undertaken, they did not observe the witnesses first hand, they were not privy to all those pesky little details which never get written down. Those on the scene immediately after a suspected crime is carried out will always be in the best position to arrive at an opinion as to what really went on. The fact that the mother of a missing child so blatantly refused to answer police questions was an indicator in itself that she feared being caught out. In those circumstances the police were totally within their rights to pursue this further.
He neither observed the crime scene or the witnesses first hand with the exception of seeing Murat outside his villa.
He mentions in his book asking a GNR soldier who he was.
those at the crime scene collect the evidence...they play no part in deciding if that evidence shows guilt or innocence...that is decided by others...thats the basis of a proper justice system...portugal doesnt seem to understand that..
So what was stopping the abductor from brushing the bed down?
To air the bed silly...
So this burglar got in through a tiny slit in a shutter- they were not working acording to Diane and she checked!. opened a window grabbed a child while holding her- he pulled out is cleaning kit and began to wash windows and make the bed.. Taking it to another level here @)(++(*
He neither observed the crime scene or the witnesses first hand with the exception of seeing Murat outside his villa.
He mentions in his book asking a GNR soldier who he was.
That's incorrect Brietta. Amaral spent a lot of time at Ocean Club and checking routes.
That's incorrect Brietta. Amaral spent a lot of time at Ocean Club and checking routes.
His eye certainly fell on Murat as a likely suspect ... but he gives no other mention of anyone or anything or his activities in or around the crime scene as far as I know.
He certainly had no contact with either Kate or Gerry McCann.
His eye certainly fell on Murat as a likely suspect ... but he gives no other mention of anyone or anything or his activities in or around the crime scene as far as I know.
He certainly had no contact with either Kate or Gerry McCann.
His eye certainly fell on Murat as a likely suspect ... but he gives no other mention of anyone or anything or his activities in or around the crime scene as far as I know.
He certainly had no contact with either Kate or Gerry McCann.
Does it take me to say that Amaral needed Kate and Gerry to be culpable? Either, or both, depending on who could have done this alone or together. And without any help.
Amaral was already in some sort of trouble. Are we supposed to forget that this happened.
To say that Amaral should never have been even remotely involved in the Case of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is somewhat disgusting. How on earth did that happen? Who allowed this to happen? The hierarchy knew what was going on, and they still left Amaral in charge.
I will forever remain gobsmacked by their stupidity.
Amaral knew that Kate and Gerry could not have accomplished the disappearance of the body of their daughter without the help of someone local. It was that simple.
He was PJ coordinator for that area, it was his job.I don't think his skill set was up to it. Rebelo introduced the relevant specialists to the investigation. The accusations against him ... later proved ... which resulted in him being made an arguido on the 4th of May were of a nature and about a case which would have made it wise to replace him from Madeleine's case.
He was PJ coordinator for that area, it was his job.
...or with the help of someone not so local.
Have you forgotten who conveniently pointed the finger at Murat? Tanner claimed that his gait was the same as the man she claimed to have seen carrying a young child and two others from the tapas group claimed to have seen him outside Ocean Club on the night that Maddie disappeared. Are you asking us to believe that this wasn't all discussed by the tapas group before it was reported to the police?
Amaral was there when the McCanns were interviewed.
According to Jane's rogatory statement there was no general discussion of her sighting ... which she told the police about as soon as she could when they arrived on the scene.
Why would the tapas group discuss Amaral. They didn't know him. They didn't know where he lived. Jane certainly never ID him.
Have you forgotten who conveniently pointed the finger at Murat? Tanner claimed that his gait was the same as the man she claimed to have seen carrying a young child and two others from the tapas group claimed to have seen him outside Ocean Club on the night that Maddie disappeared. Are you asking us to believe that this wasn't all discussed by the tapas group before it was reported to the police?
Amaral was there when the McCanns were interviewed.
According to Jane's rogatory statement there was no general discussion of her sighting ... which she told the police about as soon as she could when they arrived on the scene.
Why would the tapas group discuss Amaral. They didn't know him. They didn't know where he lived. Jane certainly never ID him.
Jane Tanner: I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
LP: 4078 “No”.
Jane Tanner: Reply “But I just thought it was”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Classic Jane $65*How many times??!
From this I infer she still thought it was him but was scared to admit it.
Jane Tanner: I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
LP: 4078 “No”.
Jane Tanner: Reply “But I just thought it was”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
If Jane Tanner "just thought it was" why no mention of it in the files?
Reading between the lines I have wondered if it could have been a British initiative.No mention of that in Amaral’s book.
No mention of that in Amaral’s book.
According to Jane's rogatory statement there was no general discussion of her sighting ... which she told the police about as soon as she could when they arrived on the scene.
Why would the tapas group discuss Amaral. They didn't know him. They didn't know where he lived. Jane certainly never ID him.
If Jane Tanner "just thought it was" why no mention of it in the files?
I said discuss Robert Murat. They were certainly extremely keen to point the finger.
And how would they do that when they are already through the window but nobody went through it so I can ignore that question.
It was already proven that someone could get into the apartment through the window, a PJ officer went through the window.
I don't think that the abductor entered through the window though, I believe he had a key, the window was opened for another reason, maybe for the Police to believe the abductor had entered that way to put them off the scent that someone had a key. IMO
Yup, that could very well be.*looks for the shocked and stunned emoticon*
All we need is the identity of this person.
*looks for the shocked and stunned emoticon*
Why? Abductor doesn't have to mean stranger.As you were then.
Wasn't that why the undercover operation took place in the first place involving Tanner?
I don't think so. I think it was just another pythonesque venture dreamed up by the Judicial police.
How could she have "just thought it was" since she didn't know Murat from Adam (even when she almost walked into him on her way to the 'stakeout') and she certainly was not one of those who said they had seen him outside the apartment 3/4 May.
It’s not without cause that even the parents own private investigators saw Tanner as an unreliable witness.What makes you sure of that? I doubt they've given it any consideration at all, too busy looking for the person who abducted Madeleine.
Not to worry though, I’m sure the current PJ and SY investigation will know exactly what happened during the van incident.
What makes you sure of that? I doubt they've given it any consideration at all, too busy looking for the person who abducted Madeleine.
I doubt very much if Scotland Yard or the Judicial police have given much thought to any of the events of the first four months of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance once they had both got their independent scoping exercises out of the way.
I do not think that an investigation which is stuck like a fly in aspic is going to reach any kind of conclusion. Investigations which progress from studying evidence for what can be discarded or is relevant for progressing to the next stage have a much better chance.
I doubt very much if Scotland Yard or the Judicial police have given much thought to any of the events of the first four months of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance once they had both got their independent scoping exercises out of the way.
I do not think that an investigation which is stuck like a fly in aspic is going to reach any kind of conclusion. Investigations which progress from studying evidence for what can be discarded or is relevant for progressing to the next stage have a much better chance.
I wonder where Redwood found his 195 new unvestigative opportunities? I thought it was by sifting through the evidence gathered in the beginning.It is beyond my understanding why some make the assumption that the be all and end all of Madeleine's case centred on four months in 2007; particularly when much of what was carried out then was an investigative irrelevance while at the same time the relevance of the phone traffic between burglars was ignored.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
It was already proven that someone could get into the apartment through the window, a PJ officer went through the window.
I don't think that the abductor entered through the window though, I believe he had a key, the window was opened for another reason, maybe for the Police to believe the abductor had entered that way to put them off the scent that someone had a key. IMO
It is beyond my understanding why some make the assumption that the be all and end all of Madeleine's case centred on four months in 2007; particularly when much of what was carried out then was an investigative irrelevance while at the same time the relevance of the phone traffic between burglars was ignored.
Just as the relevance to a child missing from her bed was not linked to instances of other children attacked in theirs by an intruder.
When Madeleine's case was shut down in 2008 with the failure of the police to determine what had happened to her, only her parents kept the work on her case alive for the years between then and until the end of 2013 when Scotland Yard and the Judicial police took over from the McCann private investigators.
I think much of that time, expense, hard work and information of all those years may well have been channelled through Operation Grange.
In your opinion there are no unanswered questions from those early days. The problem is that a lot og people disagree with you and will continue to point those anomalies out.It’s not a problem, every major news story has its dedicated band of conspiracy theorists who refuse to accept the official version of events, twas ever thus.
In your opinion there are no unanswered questions from those early days. The problem is that a lot og people disagree with you and will continue to point those anomalies out.
There are still those who hold the unshakeable belief that the world is flat ... but even so ... I doubt the compounded errors of the 2007 four month investigation feature anywhere in current police thinking except perhaps that it is more of an embarrassment than assistance.
If we're going to disciss beliefs then those pointing out anomalies are speaking about facts, not beliefs.
You talk about anomalies in the mccanns statenents... But it is opinion as to whether the statements are, accurate... These facts you presume are facts may not be facts, at all
They are evidence. You have no evidence to uphold your opinions imo.
They are evidence but are they accurate.. We don't know...almost certainly the way they were taken means they will contain errors.
And there is, evidence to support my opinion... It's been quoted several times
Have you really not seen this.... And more
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
I disagree with Mr Sutton. The witnesses gave their evidence and the interpreter translated it into Portuguese. After it was typed the interpreter translated it back into English and the witness signed it. No room there for 'enormous' errors, they would have been noticed. If Grange were given translations containing 'enormous' errors then they must have used sub-standard translators imo.
People may not be clear about times, but what about sequences? Matthew Oldfield said on 4th May that the Payne group arrived at the Tapas 5 minutes before he went to listen at children's bedroom windows. His wife Rachael said his purpose in going was to look for the Payne group. Fancy Matthew forgetting why he left the table.
I disagree with Mr Sutton. The witnesses gave their evidence and the interpreter translated it into Portuguese. After it was typed the interpreter translated it back into English and the witness signed it. No room there for 'enormous' errors, they would have been noticed. If Grange were given translations containing 'enormous' errors then they must have used sub-standard translators imo.
People may not be clear about times, but what about sequences? Matthew Oldfield said on 4th May that the Payne group arrived at the Tapas 5 minutes before he went to listen at children's bedroom windows. His wife Rachael said his purpose in going was to look for the Payne group. Fancy Matthew forgetting why he left the table.
you can disagree all you want its of no importance...the
FACT that translation is not an exact science...the
FACT that sutton made this statement...the
FACT that the mccanns were concerned with mistakes in the satements taht they said they gave new statements to control risks..the
FACT...that there is no record of what the mccanns actually said....the
FACT,,,...that rebelo drew attention to the possible mistakes in statements
All those facts are evidence which because of your fixed mindset you wish to deny,,,as you have denied other evidence on another topic
if you read the staements you will see the translators did not translate waht the witnesses said...they paraphrased it...another room for error.....im sure Grange undestand this and will have re interviewed teh mccanns
Wonder where the burglars were when all this was going on? Great pity no-one seems to have bothered to ask them until Scotland Yard did in 2014.
The signed statements are facts and evidence in the case. Your facts are opinions about the reliability of those statements and are not evidence in the case.
They were leading their lives and were still doing it in 2014, just as they are in 2019, I presume. SY were unable to connect them to the case. Perhaps it's time to move on?
my posts contain facts....and are evidence in the case as they relate to the statemnts...if you cant see that its your problem...you have aproblem understandiing what is a fact and what is evidence...imo
If it ever came to trial then the statements taken at the beginning would be admissible as evidence. A defendant might want to criticise those statements and they may be allowed to call expert witnesses for that. Those expert witnesses would not include the McCanns or Colin Sutton; their opinions would not be admissible as evidence any more than yours would be.You said there was no evidence... I've shown there is.... Now you are arguing as to what is admissible....as the statements were taken as witness statements... Non arguido.... Can they be used against the mccanns...could you provide, a cite they would be admissable as you have claimed
You said there was no evidence... I've shown there is.... Now you are arguing as to what is admissible....as the statements were taken as witness statements... Non arguido.... Can they be used against the mccanns...could you provide, a cite they would be admissable as you have claimed
Of course they can be used, in the same way as witness statements here can be used at trial.
suspects are interviewed under caution....can statements made without being cautioned be used against a witness,...if so whats the point of a caution...
Interviews under caution
Once police have grounds to suspect someone of an offence, the person must be cautioned before being asked any further questions. Unless this is done, the suspect's answers, or silence, cannot be used in court
Any statements made voluntarily can be used in court imo.
Any statements made voluntarily can be used in court imo.
That's your opinion... But it doesn't seem to be what the law, says.. I think you are, quite, wrong
https://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/court-procedure/witness-statements/
A witness statement is a formal document containing your own account of the facts relating to issues arising in a dispute. Comments made in the statement should be limited to fact, and comments based on opinion should be kept to a minimum.
The purpose of the witness statement is to provide written evidence to support a party's case that will, if necessary, be used as evidence in court. The statement is a crucial part of the case, designed to show it in its strongest light. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the statement is accurate and comprehensive.
All very true but... Can a witness statement be used against the witness... Who has not been cautioned... My cite, says no
That's, why suspects are read their rights
If people aren't cautioned then their statements aren't admissible.
If it ever came to trial then the statements taken at the beginning would be admissible as evidence. A defendant might want to criticise those statements and they may be allowed to call expert witnesses for that. Those expert witnesses would not include the McCanns or Colin Sutton; their opinions would not be admissible as evidence any more than yours would be.
Can Colin Sutton's opinion be described as evidence?Evidence of what?
Does that mean the sum total of evidence for the open window and whooshing curtains amounts to no comment?
Which suspect in this case alleges they had a voluntary statement beaten out of them? As you can see I'm new and getting confused. ()678%
Because Davel said What statements, aren't voluntary.... Those that are beaten out of a, suspect, that's why. Why did he say that?Please link to the post made by Davel to which you refer. Thank you
I'm new, perhaps you can guide me on how link it please? I had C&P it. *&(+(+
How about that, Look at the top line of a post.
Re: Madeleine McCann alive?
« Reply #219 on: Today at 08:13:04 PM »
Quote " where it says Quote click on that.
Evidence of what?
Blowed if I know. This is his opinion;
snip/
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10595.msg515339#msg515339
This is the claim that his opinion is evidence;
snip/
the FACT that sutton made this statement..........All those facts are evidence
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10595.msg515349#msg515349
And his opinion is evidence to support the claim the statements are not accurate
His opinion is his opinion. You can call it evidence but it has no meaningful evidential value, How could it be used, by whom and for what purpose?
That's your opinion.. Not fact
We could spend all day arguing about the meanings of words, but life's too short ino. Unless you can explain why you think the facts you quoted can be seen as evidence my interest in this discussion ends here..As they support the assertion that the statements are not accurate then by definition they are evidence... It could be argued that the statements have no evidential value, due to the way they were recorded ...as I pointed out to you they almost certainly can't be used against the mccanns
As they support the assertion that the statements are not accurate then by definition they are evidence... It could be argued that the statements have no evidential value, due to the way they were recorded ...as I pointed out to you they almost certainly can't be used against the mccanns
So you assert that the statements are not accurate and to prove that you're right you are saying others agree with you.
The people who made the statements signed them, thereby certifying their accuracy.
They signed them they didn't verify their accuracy... They couldn't as they were in portuguese... That is a fact you wont accept.. How can you verify the accuracy if something you don't understand...
"With all formal witness statements, the interview is read over and its contents explained. After having shown their agreement with their statements, the interviewee confirms and signs as accurate the content of the document that follows, conjointly with the "sworn" interpreter, where one is used. This is normal procedure in all formal interviews. In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
All that was, written in Portuguese..
From a legal point of view it's extremely poor practice
Whose legal point of view? Yours? @)(++(*
Yes... I deal with signatures on documents all day long..it's a legal minefield... In English law, just because someone signs something is not proof they've understood it.
You said the, statements, could be used in court... That's just your opinion..
I've said fir years the statement s may well contain mistakes... Sutton agrees.. Rebeli Saud they might... Kate Saud they did... That's convincing to me
You cling to that hope Davel. OG have used the statements throughout their investigations....that the main protagonists have not been interviewed is proof of this...and seem to have no problem with their accuracy.
I think it's totally ridiculous to think the mccanns have not been Re interviewed... As, witnesses... Which negates everything in your post
I don't cling to any hope...
I would be a failing on behalf of SY if they haven't since they were the last adults to see Maddie alive.
Yes... I deal with signatures on documents all day long..it's a legal minefield... In English law, just because someone signs something is not proof they've understood it.
You said the, statements, could be used in court... That's just your opinion..
I've said fir years the statement s may well contain mistakes... Sutton agrees.. Rebeli Saud they might... Kate Saud they did... That's convincing to me
Sorry, but your opinion about the signatures was wrong. In my opinion your other opnions are also wrong.They are not evidence, just gossip based on nothing concrete.
You don't have to be sorry I'm not bothered by your opinions... I have enough experience to know that the statements wibt be accurate and it's interesting Sutton agrees, with me.... And Kate confirms if it... You have no real evidence that they are and the very FACT that translation is not an exact science confirms there will be mistakes
There are No Translations for Nuances. And some words simply cannot be translated.Correct indeed.
Correct indeed.
But all you need to ask for is KISS.
I talk to my 3 year old grandson in words that a 3 year old understands.
I talk to my 8 year old grandson in words that an 8 year old understands. He can wrap his brain around 'sedimentary' and 'volcano'. As long I speak slowly and KISS.
We are, I believe, going out for a visit to the Paraiso in Luz, this coming weekend. Myself, my better half, our daughter, and those 2 out of our grandchildren.
My task is simple. I have promised to take the 3 year old to the rock pools, just as I did with the older child when he was once 3.
With the older child, I want to talk to him about dinosaurs, and about igneous lava flow. Rocha Negra @ Praia de Luz. 8 year old stuff.
I like feeding their brains.
&%%6
What is the French word for the dish known in English as 'trifle'? I have been told by a Spanish daughter-in-law that there is no equivalent in Spanish, but there definitely is.
We need to start co-writing a food blog. Kindly think about it.
&^^&*
Just as a matter of interest, I have always cooked according to how I feel. I chuck in any old thing depending on what I have got. All frightfully French. But if you want a recipe for my Stew or Pasties then please do ask. They mostly depend on Viande pour Les Animaux which is awfully good at Euros 2.20 the kilo.
Mes Animaux don't get a lot of it.
But that's another story, and we won't go into what Charlotte, the ghastly Pug does.
Just as a matter of interest, I have always cooked according to how I feel. I chuck in any old thing depending on what I have got. All frightfully French. But if you want a recipe for my Stew or Pasties then please do ask. They mostly depend on Viande pour Les Animaux which is awfully good at Euros 2.20 the kilo.
Mes Animaux don't get a lot of it.
But that's another story, and we won't go into what Charlotte, the ghastly Pug does.
I love that pug to bits Eleanor. From what you've told us about her she and mine would get on famously, but I think on balance mine might be slightly more refeeeined.
Please feel free to defend France, because that is hitting the nail on the head.This sounds like something that should be taken to PM IMO, it’s all a bit... &%%6
My experience of France is around 7 to 10 days in total. I remember a hovercraft visit with my parents, when both were still alive. I also remember watching people playing boule in Cannes, and winning a tiny amount in the local casino. With my beloved.
At 7 to 10 days experience, I know that what I truly know about the country is next to nothing. It's all done from a distance. The little Portuguese girl who got murdered there last year. Personally, I happen to love France, perhaps because it is sunnier than the UK. Perhaps because I can speak a lot more French than I can Portuguese.
So the offer remains open. A new blog, or a new forum, as you prefer. 100% nothing to do with MBM. Just food, glorious food. Your end is France and all things French. My end is, well, the rest of the world.
My beloved loves my Singapore Laksa. Possibly because as she was growing up she spent a couple of years there. Along with places like the Lebanon, Sudan, India and Pakistan. She has a truly wonderful tale about a snow leopard getting into her school compound. Absolutely fascinating.
Come on pussycat. A blog or forum about cooking. Yummy, yummy scrummy in my tummy!
Please feel free to defend France, because that is hitting the nail on the head.
My experience of France is around 7 to 10 days in total. I remember a hovercraft visit with my parents, when both were still alive. I also remember watching people playing boule in Cannes, and winning a tiny amount in the local casino. With my beloved.
At 7 to 10 days experience, I know that what I truly know about the country is next to nothing. It's all done from a distance. The little Portuguese girl who got murdered there last year. Personally, I happen to love France, perhaps because it is sunnier than the UK. Perhaps because I can speak a lot more French than I can Portuguese.
So the offer remains open. A new blog, or a new forum, as you prefer. 100% nothing to do with MBM. Just food, glorious food. Your end is France and all things French. My end is, well, the rest of the world.
My beloved loves my Singapore Laksa. Possibly because as she was growing up she spent a couple of years there. Along with places like the Lebanon, Sudan, India and Pakistan. She has a truly wonderful tale about a snow leopard getting into her school compound. Absolutely fascinating.
Come on pussycat. A blog or forum about cooking. Yummy, yummy scrummy in my tummy!
Please feel free to defend France, because that is hitting the nail on the head.
My experience of France is around 7 to 10 days in total. I remember a hovercraft visit with my parents, when both were still alive. I also remember watching people playing boule in Cannes, and winning a tiny amount in the local casino. With my beloved.
At 7 to 10 days experience, I know that what I truly know about the country is next to nothing. It's all done from a distance. The little Portuguese girl who got murdered there last year. Personally, I happen to love France, perhaps because it is sunnier than the UK. Perhaps because I can speak a lot more French than I can Portuguese.
So the offer remains open. A new blog, or a new forum, as you prefer. 100% nothing to do with MBM. Just food, glorious food. Your end is France and all things French. My end is, well, the rest of the world.
My beloved loves my Singapore Laksa. Possibly because as she was growing up she spent a couple of years there. Along with places like the Lebanon, Sudan, India and Pakistan. She has a truly wonderful tale about a snow leopard getting into her school compound. Absolutely fascinating.
Come on pussycat. A blog or forum about cooking. Yummy, yummy scrummy in my tummy!
I already have a Blog.3 very good points.
My youngest son is a Singapore Citizen. I Lived there and loved it all. And I probably know more about how to cook rice than you ever will.
Learn to cook Rice.
Land your living in. SY were looking for that deep sleeping child in nearby wasteland.
It has always troubled me why they would put the children in the bedroom with the window directly at the car park, where the risk of parking cars waking the abandoned children was plainly obvious while they ignored the insight bedroom where the traffic noise was greatly reduced. I've often run that scenario over in my head and can never see their logic. I can't ever ignore the fact the dog alerted in the other bedroom either.
It has always troubled me why they would put the children in the bedroom with the window directly at the car park, where the risk of parking cars waking the abandoned children was plainly obvious while they ignored the insight bedroom where the traffic noise was greatly reduced. I've often run that scenario over in my head and can never see their logic. I can't ever ignore the fact the dog alerted in the other bedroom either.
IMO at that time of the year it would have been quiet whichever bedroom was selected (as a parent, I would have thought more noise would emanate from the pool/Tapas Bar side than the back street….as having visited the area, that road is pretty dead at that time of the year). Additionally, the street bedroom required moving furniture in order to move the two single beds together. As for the children being in a deep sleep on 3 May - I would imagine that the “tea stain” on M’s PJ top that morning (even though she supposedly had not drunk tea the night before) may indicate that difficult to administer chemicals woke two of the children the night before and prevented an abduction. As a result, I don’t think it is too big a stretch that abductors could have returned the following evening with a less messy alternative to sedate them - particularly if waking the children didn’t seem to elicit any action for quite a length of time and that all the Tapas 9 were again seated for dinner the following day….indicating further that these kids were pretty easy targets . That said, I notice forums often argue over issues like Tannerman /Smithman and the dogs that were brought in weeks after the incident - but all 3 have so many variables that we can’t be sure if they are actually valid/relevant to the case. I.E. The dogs not only seemed to be “led” by their handler…. but I also imagine that the apartment over the years saw a huge quantity of stinking nappies, wet swimming costumes, sea shells and discarded food - so no doubt some pretty horrendous smell residues that most humans would not have picked up. Also, abductors have been known to enter properties without leaving any usable trail of DNA or fingerprints…. including Alesha Macphail and Elizabeth Smart…..and in Elizabeth’s case the guy actually worked as a handy man in the house…..and still no usable dna or fingerprints were found. Personally, bearing all this mind I can only imagine that if SY, after all theses years, are now asking for another year of funding - it can only be justifiable if they are going after a much “bigger animal” i.e. a trafficking ring.
IMO at that time of the year it would have been quiet whichever bedroom was selected (as a parent, I would have thought more noise would emanate from the pool/Tapas Bar side than the back street….as having visited the area, that road is pretty dead at that time of the year). Additionally, the street bedroom required moving furniture in order to move the two single beds together. As for the children being in a deep sleep on 3 May - I would imagine that the “tea stain” on M’s PJ top that morning (even though she supposedly had not drunk tea the night before) may indicate that difficult to administer chemicals woke two of the children the night before and prevented an abduction. As a result, I don’t think it is too big a stretch that abductors could have returned the following evening with a less messy alternative to sedate them - particularly if waking the children didn’t seem to elicit any action for quite a length of time and that all the Tapas 9 were again seated for dinner the following day….indicating further that these kids were pretty easy targets . That said, I notice forums often argue over issues like Tannerman /Smithman and the dogs that were brought in weeks after the incident - but all 3 have so many variables that we can’t be sure if they are actually valid/relevant to the case. I.E. The dogs not only seemed to be “led” by their handler…. but I also imagine that the apartment over the years saw a huge quantity of stinking nappies, wet swimming costumes, sea shells and discarded food - so no doubt some pretty horrendous smell residues that most humans would not have picked up. Also, abductors have been known to enter properties without leaving any usable trail of DNA or fingerprints…. including Alesha Macphail and Elizabeth Smart…..and in Elizabeth’s case the guy actually worked as a handy man in the house…..and still no usable dna or fingerprints were found. Personally, bearing all this mind I can only imagine that if SY, after all theses years, are now asking for another year of funding - it can only be justifiable if they are going after a much “bigger animal” i.e. a trafficking ring.
All the things you list which might have affected the dogs were undoubtedly present in 5B, D, and H too, of course.
But of course the digs ignored areas in 5a but were allowed try again before alerting
IYO, of course.
no its in the files...the pj were sirprised they alerted to places they had previously ignored
no its in the files...the pj were sirprised they alerted to places they had previously ignored
For which you have a cite no doubt.