What Are The Current Theories Held By Contributors At UKJF?

[ShiningInLuz]

Actually no, but I did see them carrying the baby into their room and did not hear their door open or close again that evening.

Were you on Neighbourhood Watch?

[Venturi Swirl]

Were you on Neighbourhood Watch?

Yes.  Yes I was.

[pathfinder73]

Well the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying she also states she heard the patio doors open at approx 11.45pm and the only night the McCanns stayed out that late according to all available testimony was 2nd May.

RO may have been asleep and/or the tv on and/or apartment was constructed in such a way the sound didn't carry.  Although I think MO said he could hear the children at bath time.

They said the walls were thin and they could hear noises next door. Quiz night was Tuesday so that may suggest a later night as they won the quiz. The police would have checked the phone records for that call between Pamela Fenn and Edna Glyn. That would confirm if the statement date was factual or not.

"Regarding the most and best information that might help the present investigation she said she remembered on one night (she thinks it was Tuesday, 1 May) there were two couples, supposedly English, that dined in the Tapas restaurant. After [their meal] they left, [JT] not knowing if they participated in the quiz game that Mark Warner put on during the meal. The game consisted of a MW worker asking questions about films, namely quotations with the objective of identifying the films. At the end the tables were given a questionnaire that gave the source and a result. The first prize was a jug of sangria, curiously won by the deponent's table. She remembered only [that] the agency lady commented on the the two couples who had left the game before the final result was known.
 
She never saw those couples before nor since that day. She does not know if they were Mark Warner clients."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

[ShiningInLuz]

They said the walls were thin and they could hear noises next door. Quiz night was Tuesday so that may suggest a later night as they won the quiz. The police would have checked the phone records for that call between Pamela Fenn and Edna Glyn. That would confirm if the statement date was factual or not.

"Regarding the most and best information that might help the present investigation she said she remembered on one night (she thinks it was Tuesday, 1 May) there were two couples, supposedly English, that dined in the Tapas restaurant. After [their meal] they left, [JT] not knowing if they participated in the quiz game that Mark Warner put on during the meal. The game consisted of a MW worker asking questions about films, namely quotations with the objective of identifying the films. At the end the tables were given a questionnaire that gave the source and a result. The first prize was a jug of sangria, curiously won by the deponent's table. She remembered only [that] the agency lady commented on the the two couples who had left the game before the final result was known.
 
She never saw those couples before nor since that day. She does not know if they were Mark Warner clients."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

I don't know whether the police checked on the phone call or not.

They had a mass of mobile traffic from 2 May to 4 May, which they could check.

To check on a landline call, they needed authority, and there's nothing in the PJF to suggest they sought it.

If the call was made by mobile on Tue 1st May, they again needed authority to get it, and there's nothing in the PJF to suggest they sought it.

[pathfinder73]

Thanks for the information but If they were building a case then they would be required to corroborate it.

[Robittybob1]

Thanks for the information but If they were building a case then they would be required to corroborate it.

But wouldn't the evidence have to show some part of the crime if they are building a case?

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't know whether the police checked on the phone call or not.

They had a mass of mobile traffic from 2 May to 4 May, which they could check.

To check on a landline call, they needed authority, and there's nothing in the PJF to suggest they sought it.

If the call was made by mobile on Tue 1st May, they again needed authority to get it, and there's nothing in the PJF to suggest they sought it.

I think the 3 guys (locally known petty burglars) recently interviewed by SY/PJ were identified based on a lot of local mobile phone traffic between said individuals.  This suggests perhaps the investigation focused on cell site analysis locally as opposed to cars driving away?

[ShiningInLuz]

I think the 3 guys (locally known petty burglars) recently interviewed by SY/PJ were identified based on a lot of local mobile phone traffic between said individuals.  This suggests perhaps the investigation focused on cell site analysis locally as opposed to cars driving away?

Eeek!  Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

The 3 are alleged burglars.

I believe I know one of them, and he couldn't burgle anything if his life depended on it.

The second was a minibus driver for the OC.  He was living close to the Smith sighting at the time.

The 3rd was 16 years old, and might or might not have been up to what the media suggested.

All 4 of the July 2004 arguidos had the common denominator of living close to the Smith sighting, which was close to the part of central Luz scoured by OG in June 2014.

[Holly Goodhead]

Eeek!  Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

The 3 are alleged burglars.

I believe I know one of them, and he couldn't burgle anything if his life depended on it.

The second was a minibus driver for the OC.  He was living close to the Smith sighting at the time.

The 3rd was 16 years old, and might or might not have been up to what the media suggested.

All 4 of the July 2004 arguidos had the common denominator of living close to the Smith sighting, which was close to the part of central Luz scoured by OG in June 2014.

  alleged burglars.  In any event as soon as I heard about this I thought it extremely unlikely 3 local alleged burglars would be involved.  This sort of thing suggests to me that investigators are running on empty.  I wonder if the case of Meredith Kercher influenced their thinking in that the perp, Rudy Guede, carried out burglaries leading up to the sexual assault and murder, although unlike this case the body was left in-situ.   

[Robittybob1]

Eeek!  Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

The 3 are alleged burglars.

I believe I know one of them, and he couldn't burgle anything if his life depended on it.

The second was a minibus driver for the OC.  He was living close to the Smith sighting at the time.

The 3rd was 16 years old, and might or might not have been up to what the media suggested.

All 4 of the July 2004 arguidos had the common denominator of living close to the Smith sighting, which was close to the part of central Luz scoured by OG in June 2014.

Are you sure these 3 persons never had any prior criminal convictions?

[ShiningInLuz]

Are you sure these 3 persons never had any prior criminal convictions?

Hence alleged!

[Holly Goodhead]

A poster on another thread has claimed, in relation to theories, that there's no evidence of a 'getaway' car.  I don't believe this to be the case.  I believe the fact the S&R dogs did not scent MM outside the immediate vicinity is strongly suggestive of MM placed in a car in close proximity to 5A and driven off.

The fact some want to doubt the S&R dogs were given items containing MM's scent which would lead them on false trails does not mean that this is what happened. 

[jassi]

A poster on another thread has claimed, in relation to theories, that there's no evidence of a 'getaway' car.  I don't believe this to be the case.  I believe the fact the S&R dogs did not scent MM outside the immediate vicinity is strongly suggestive of MM placed in a car in close proximity to 5A and driven off.

The fact some want to doubt the S&R dogs were given items containing MM's scent which would lead them on false trails does not mean that this is what happened.

'Strongly suggestive' is not evidence, its opinion.

[Holly Goodhead]

'Strongly suggestive' is not evidence, its opinion.

As a stand alone yes but it is not a stand alone.

[G-Unit]

A poster on another thread has claimed, in relation to theories, that there's no evidence of a 'getaway' car.  I don't believe this to be the case.  I believe the fact the S&R dogs did not scent MM outside the immediate vicinity is strongly suggestive of MM placed in a car in close proximity to 5A and driven off.

The fact some want to doubt the S&R dogs were given items containing MM's scent which would lead them on false trails does not mean that this is what happened.

Had someone seen a child being put into a car near 5A on 3rd and driven away that would be evidence. No-one reported even seeing a car though.

The sniffer dog handler said himself the dogs could be following a trail laid down in previous days. Their route may be a clue, but it's not evidence of anything.