UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: kizzy on September 10, 2021, 01:42:43 PM
-
By the public
I do believe GA should be just as credible as H C W....He was there when what ever happened took place and as yet has not been proved wrong as there has been no conclusion to case or proof maddie was abducted.
quote from thread
In my opinion a lot of people were duped into giving to the fund for Amaral. Calling it 'Justice for Maddie' Collecting on Madeleine's birthday. I believe a lot thought it was going towards the search for her.
Nearly £53.thousand was donated of a £20, thousand target clearly marked - Legal defence for Goncalo Amaral
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_gafund2500.htm
One donation of £1,000 claims to be from 'a very large' group of Met Police officers outraged at the way Amaral has been treated.
-
By the public
I do believe GA should be just as credible as H C W....He was there when what ever happened took place and as yet has not been proved wrong as there has been no conclusion to case or proof maddie was abducted.
quote from thread
In my opinion a lot of people were duped into giving to the fund for Amaral. Calling it 'Justice for Maddie' Collecting on Madeleine's birthday. I believe a lot thought it was going towards the search for her.
Nearly £53.thousand was donated of a £20, thousand target clearly marked - Legal defence for Goncalo Amaral
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_gafund2500.htm
One donation of £1,000 claims to be from 'a very large' group of Met Police officers outraged at the way Amaral has been treated.
A very large group? Was it about 1000 coppers chipping in a pound each?
So Amaral’s Fund raised £53k making him highly respected. That makes the McCanns with their fund of over £1m roughly 19 times more respectable than Amaral. @)(++(*
-
Personally, I doubt that it was a large number of "Coppers" that donated one thousand pounds. More like one particular Copper. But I do have to say that I am stunned if it was in fact 53 Thousand Pounds.
I never gave any money to anyone, probably because I was a bit broke myself at the time. And remain so to this day, although The Food Bank has helped out a bit.
But is this a measure of what the world in general thinks of Amaral? And just how many Portuguese people donated? Does anyone know this?
-
Another entry for "Wonky Gonky's Absolutely Ridiculous Photo Manipulation Contest".
Featuring Brueckner's ratstailfarian (circa 2007), cadaver dog-eared spliff and x-ray specs capable of penetrating Ocean Club walls at 50 metres...
-
Personally, I doubt that it was a large number of "Coppers" that donated one thousand pounds. More like one particular Copper. But I do have to say that I am stunned if it was in fact 53 Thousand Pounds.
I never gave any money to anyone, probably because I was a bit broke myself at the time. And remain so to this day, although The Food Bank has helped out a bit.
But is this a measure of what the world in general thinks of Amaral? And just how many Portuguese people donated? Does anyone know this?
The world in general has never heard of Amaral
IMO
-
A very large group? Was it about 1000 coppers chipping in a pound each?
So Amaral’s Fund raised £53k making him highly respected. That makes the McCanns with their fund of over £1m roughly 19 times more respectable than Amaral. @)(++(*
On 29th April 2015 the GoFundMe page was created by Leanne Baulch to raise funds for Amaral's defence against the action brought against him by the McCanns. He didn't have the funds to pay for his defence himself as they had been frozen by an injunction taken out by the McCanns. It was closed on 28th October 2015 as the PJGA group were satisfied that enough had been raised. An average of £ 8,800 per month was donated.
In my opinion a lot of that money was donated due to the attitude of the UK press. They accused those who donated of being 'online trolls'. That simplistic and untrue accusation led to more donations being made rather than discouraging people imo. As did efforts to make the GoFundMe page difficult to locate.
So Amaral was able to defend himself because people in the UK disagreed with tactics designed to prevent him from doing so imo.
-
By the public
I do believe GA should be just as credible as H C W....He was there when what ever happened took place and as yet has not been proved wrong as there has been no conclusion to case or proof maddie was abducted.
quote from thread
In my opinion a lot of people were duped into giving to the fund for Amaral. Calling it 'Justice for Maddie' Collecting on Madeleine's birthday. I believe a lot thought it was going towards the search for her.
Nearly £53.thousand was donated of a £20, thousand target clearly marked - Legal defence for Goncalo Amaral
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_gafund2500.htm
One donation of £1,000 claims to be from 'a very large' group of Met Police officers outraged at the way Amaral has been treated.
Those comments are quite nauseating. Anyone would think he was a god, instead of an Arguido. He was made an Arguido days before he took on the job of missing Madeleine. How on earth that happened is anyones guess. He lied in court. He didn't understand the forensic results blamed the parents with no evidence at all, then when taken off the case, wrote a libellous book. How does anyone know what assets he had? The McCann's weren't to blame for his marriage failing, or for him losing his house. Giving money to a person who wrote a book about a missing child based on what he believed happened, none of it proven. He was no doubt laughing at the lot of you.
-
On 29th April 2015 the GoFundMe page was created by Leanne Baulch to raise funds for Amaral's defence against the action brought against him by the McCanns. He didn't have the funds to pay for his defence himself as they had been frozen by an injunction taken out by the McCanns. It was closed on 28th October 2015 as the PJGA group were satisfied that enough had been raised. An average of £ 8,800 per month was donated.
In my opinion a lot of that money was donated due to the attitude of the UK press. They accused those who donated of being 'online trolls'. That simplistic and untrue accusation led to more donations being made rather than discouraging people imo. As did efforts to make the GoFundMe page difficult to locate.
So Amaral was able to defend himself because people in the UK disagreed with tactics designed to prevent him from doing so imo.
So donations made by people who didn't like the label 'troll'. not because Amaral needed the money? How ridiculous, seems the old saying 'Fools and their money are soon parted'. is quite true in this case.
-
On 29th April 2015 the GoFundMe page was created by Leanne Baulch to raise funds for Amaral's defence against the action brought against him by the McCanns. He didn't have the funds to pay for his defence himself as they had been frozen by an injunction taken out by the McCanns. It was closed on 28th October 2015 as the PJGA group were satisfied that enough had been raised. An average of £ 8,800 per month was donated.
In my opinion a lot of that money was donated due to the attitude of the UK press. They accused those who donated of being 'online trolls'. That simplistic and untrue accusation led to more donations being made rather than discouraging people imo. As did efforts to make the GoFundMe page difficult to locate.
So Amaral was able to defend himself because people in the UK disagreed with tactics designed to prevent him from doing so imo.
You are claiming that amaral needed this money to defend himself...in reality i doubt taht is true. in the Uk frozen assets can be used to pay reasobnable legal expenses...I cant see things would be any different in portugal
-
So donations made by people who didn't like the label 'troll'. not because Amaral needed the money? How ridiculous, seems the old saying 'Fools and their money are soon parted'. is quite true in this case.
So its foolish to go through the appeal process and emerge successful iyo ,which is what the funding was for isn't it.
-
A very large group? Was it about 1000 coppers chipping in a pound each?
So Amaral’s Fund raised £53k making him highly respected. That makes the McCanns with their fund of over £1m roughly 19 times more respectable than Amaral. @)(++(*
The target was £20 thousand - so seems people went above and beyond.
As for the mccs fund members of my family donated and regretted doing so as they felt they were duped.
-
Those comments are quite nauseating. Anyone would think he was a god, instead of an Arguido. He was made an Arguido days before he took on the job of missing Madeleine. How on earth that happened is anyones guess. He lied in court. He didn't understand the forensic results blamed the parents with no evidence at all, then when taken off the case, wrote a libellous book. How does anyone know what assets he had? The McCann's weren't to blame for his marriage failing, or for him losing his house. Giving money to a person who wrote a book about a missing child based on what he believed happened, none of it proven. He was no doubt laughing at the lot of you.
Not forgetting it was the mccs who created this in the first place - yet constantly treated like victims.
As for the book no one seems to complain about kmc book or JC come to that seems they could be laughing at you lot.
So nothing pproven ....no ...but has any one else proven anything ...no.
-
So donations made by people who didn't like the label 'troll'. not because Amaral needed the money? How ridiculous, seems the old saying 'Fools and their money are soon parted'. is quite true in this case.
As VS said the mccs collected hell of a lot more money than GA
-
Those comments are quite nauseating. Anyone would think he was a god, instead of an Arguido. He was made an Arguido days before he took on the job of missing Madeleine. How on earth that happened is anyones guess. He lied in court. He didn't understand the forensic results blamed the parents with no evidence at all, then when taken off the case, wrote a libellous book. How does anyone know what assets he had? The McCann's weren't to blame for his marriage failing, or for him losing his house. Giving money to a person who wrote a book about a missing child based on what he believed happened, none of it proven. He was no doubt laughing at the lot of you.
Not really relevant, although it seems to upset you.
IMO
-
So donations made by people who didn't like the label 'troll'. not because Amaral needed the money? How ridiculous, seems the old saying 'Fools and their money are soon parted'. is quite true in this case.
I think people donated for many reasons, but the 'troll' jibes were counter-productive. The donations allowed Amaral to appeal and the McCanns lost the case. Money well spent then. The money donated to 'search for Madeleine', on the other hand, did not achieve that objective.
-
You are claiming that amaral needed this money to defend himself...in reality i doubt taht is true. in the Uk frozen assets can be used to pay reasobnable legal expenses...I cant see things would be any different in portugal
IYO
He would never have been able to fight the mccs if the fund hadn't been started.
-
IYO
He would never have been able to fight the mccs if the fund hadn't been started.
No doubt McCann wouldn't have gone to court without the benefit of their fund either.
-
On 29th April 2015 the GoFundMe page was created by Leanne Baulch to raise funds for Amaral's defence against the action brought against him by the McCanns. He didn't have the funds to pay for his defence himself as they had been frozen by an injunction taken out by the McCanns. It was closed on 28th October 2015 as the PJGA group were satisfied that enough had been raised. An average of £ 8,800 per month was donated.
In my opinion a lot of that money was donated due to the attitude of the UK press. They accused those who donated of being 'online trolls'. That simplistic and untrue accusation led to more donations being made rather than discouraging people imo. As did efforts to make the GoFundMe page difficult to locate.
So Amaral was able to defend himself because people in the UK disagreed with tactics designed to prevent him from doing so imo.
That's your opinion to which you are entitled. In my opinion there was (is) a nub of some hundreds of rather peculiar McCann bashers online (some of whom undoubtedly deserve the title of troll) who see Amaral as their champion and Basher in chief and it was mostly they that poured their hard earned and pensions into their favourite cause, often making numerous donations over the weeks the fund was being promoted. Of course there were almost certainly a few people who didn't really understand what they were donating to and saw Madeleine's name and assumed they were helping with efforts to find her.
-
IYO
He would never have been able to fight the mccs if the fund hadn't been started.
No its informed opinion... The fund may well not have been necessary... He could have used his own money
It will be interesting to see what the ECHR say. The case in Portugal may well be re opened if they rule in the McCanns favour.. So the SC judgement may not be final
-
No its informed opinion... The fund may well not have been necessary... He could have used his own money
It will be interesting to see what the ECHR say. The case in Portugal may well be re opened if they rule in the McCanns favour.. So the SC judgement may not be final
The ECHR thing is a lifetime away judging by their dates of latest cases, you're gonna be waiting an awful long time, doesn't even count has noteworthy pending, cases communicated in 2017 are waiting.
-
No doubt McCann wouldn't have gone to court without the benefit of their fund either.
Well it did pay for Portuguese lawyers and for the travel and accomodation of witnesses. The reason given was that Amaral's book & documentary harmed the search for Madeleine, but that turned out to be an allegation, not a fact.
-
Well it did pay for Portuguese lawyers and for the travel and accomodation of witnesses. The reason given was that Amaral's book & documentary harmed the search for Madeleine, but that turned out to be an allegation, not a fact.
It may well be a fact.. Just not accepted by the court as proven
-
No its informed opinion... The fund may well not have been necessary... He could have used his own money
It will be interesting to see what the ECHR say. The case in Portugal may well be re opened if they rule in the McCanns favour.. So the SC judgement may not be final
t will be interesting to see what the ECHR say.
You cant live on probabilities and maybes and ifs like your posts seem to do.
I could say what if they don't get anywhere with it and then what. I don't think they will
At least GA has always been consistent in what he believes and never altered his beleifs in 14 years.
Afterall GA had first hand knowledge also ...he was involved at the beginning.
IMO also he was got rid of at the most trivial thing criticising UK police.
seems to me they wanted him gone although he has never give up his beliefs
In further rants he accuses the British Government and Scotland Yard of interfering in the case, protecting Maddie’s parents and causing the Portuguese authorities to bow to pressure.
-
No doubt McCann wouldn't have gone to court without the benefit of their fund either.
Exactly ...well said.
Plus the 11 top notch lawyers IIRC they hired at the begining.
-
t will be interesting to see what the ECHR say.
You cant live on probabilities and maybes and ifs like your posts seem to do.
I could say what if they don't get anywhere with it and then what. I don't think they will
At least GA has always been consistent in what he believes and never altered his beleifs in 14 years.
Afterall GA had first hand knowledge also ...he was involved at the beginning.
IMO also he was got rid of at the most trivial thing criticising UK police.
seems to me they wanted him gone although he has never give up his beliefs
In further rants he accuses the British Government and Scotland Yard of interfering in the case, protecting Maddie’s parents and causing the Portuguese authorities to bow to pressure.
Amaral didnt understand the evidence... Its about time he understood
-
Amaral didnt understand the evidence... Its about time he understood
He is still entitled to express his opinion, just as the McCanns freely expressed theirs.
-
He is still entitled to express his opinion, just as the McCanns freely expressed theirs.
Not if its libellous... At least you accept he didn't understand bthe evidence
-
Amaral didnt understand the evidence... Its about time he understood
Really seems Wolt going the same way.
GA knows what he knows ...stands by what he says ...as yet has not been proved wrong in his beliefs imo
-
Really seems Wolt going the same way.
GA knows what he knows ...stands by what he says ...as yet has not been proved wrong in his beliefs imo
He has been proved wrong. The alerts dont confirm a death in 5a
-
He has been proved wrong. The alerts dont confirm a death in 5a
Comonn now D its not only about the alerts is it ...there is plenty more things why he has his beliefs the mccs are involved or the abduction scenario it seems. He hasn't as yet been proved wrong or likely to be IMO.
-
Not forgetting it was the mccs who created this in the first place - yet constantly treated like victims.
As for the book no one seems to complain about kmc book or JC come to that seems they could be laughing at you lot.
So nothing pproven ....no ...but has any one else proven anything ...no.
Amaral messed the investigation up. It seems that people are sucked into things because they dislike the 'McCann's as you said the McCann's created this in the first place'. So you believe that Amaral should be awarded for the mess he caused? A little girl was missing and all he could think about was accusing the McCann's with no evidence, then when taken off the case, decided to write a book and poison the name of the McCann's for his own gain.
Kate's book on the other hand, showed the investigation through her eyes. How Amaral turned on them and was not looking for their child.
Jon Clark also points out everything that went wrong with the case.
-
t will be interesting to see what the ECHR say.
You cant live on probabilities and maybes and ifs like your posts seem to do.
I could say what if they don't get anywhere with it and then what. I don't think they will
At least GA has always been consistent in what he believes and never altered his beleifs in 14 years.
Afterall GA had first hand knowledge also ...he was involved at the beginning.
IMO also he was got rid of at the most trivial thing criticising UK police.
seems to me they wanted him gone although he has never give up his beliefs
In further rants he accuses the British Government and Scotland Yard of interfering in the case, protecting Maddie’s parents and causing the Portuguese authorities to bow to pressure.
You say Amaral hasn't altered his beliefs to this day. He commented that Gerry wasn't looking for crabs when he was on the beach, does that comment mean that Gerry had hidden Madeleine on the beach? Or that he had thrown her into the sea? Amaral said the McCann's were seen with a big black bag. Does that mean they threw her on the dump or in a bin. Amaral said the McCann's put Madeleine in the coffin of an English woman. Amaral said Madeleines DNA was found in the hire car, that ice had broken off the body and leaked in the car, where were they taking her in the car? I don't think Amaral has the faintest clue IMO. Though even now he is trying to muddle the case with his dreadlocks and stickers on the car nonsense. Ask yourself why.
-
Not if its libellous... At least you accept he didn't understand bthe evidence
He wasn't found guilty of libel because thanks to Leanne Baulche's initiative his friends raised enough money to fund his appeal which overturned the rather strange judgement of the court of the first instance.
I don't accept that the first investigation misunderstood the evidence.
-
You say Amaral hasn't altered his beliefs to this day. He commented that Gerry wasn't looking for crabs when he was on the beach, does that comment mean that Gerry had hidden Madeleine on the beach? Or that he had thrown her into the sea? Amaral said the McCann's were seen with a big black bag. Does that mean they threw her on the dump or in a bin. Amaral said the McCann's put Madeleine in the coffin of an English woman. Amaral said Madeleines DNA was found in the hire car, that ice had broken off the body and leaked in the car, where were they taking her in the car? I don't think Amaral has the faintest clue IMO. Though even now he is trying to muddle the case with his dreadlocks and stickers on the car nonsense. Ask yourself why.
I thought he voiced these as possibilities that the team considered.
-
He wasn't found guilty of libel because thanks to Leanne Baulche's initiative his friends raised enough money to fund his appeal which overturned the rather strange judgement of the court of the first instance.
I don't accept that the first investigation misunderstood the evidence.
The first investigation thought the alert confirmed cadaver odour... Amaral claimed it confirmed Maddies cadaver had been in 5a.... That's proof they misunderstood it. It seems you are so closed minded you won't accept proven facts
The case isn't over yet... The SC may well have got it wrong
-
Amaral messed the investigation up. It seems that people are sucked into things because they dislike the 'McCann's as you said the McCann's created this in the first place'. So you believe that Amaral should be awarded for the mess he caused? A little girl was missing and all he could think about was accusing the McCann's with no evidence, then when taken off the case, decided to write a book and poison the name of the McCann's for his own gain.
Kate's book on the other hand, showed the investigation through her eyes. How Amaral turned on them and was not looking for their child.
Jon Clark also points out everything that went wrong with the case.
Has any body looked for the child, or are looking to what happened to the child, world of difference, not a trace to her whereabouts.
-
Amaral messed the investigation up. It seems that people are sucked into things because they dislike the 'McCann's as you said the McCann's created this in the first place'. So you believe that Amaral should be awarded for the mess he caused? A little girl was missing and all he could think about was accusing the McCann's with no evidence, then when taken off the case, decided to write a book and poison the name of the McCann's for his own gain.
Kate's book on the other hand, showed the investigation through her eyes. How Amaral turned on them and was not looking for their child.
Jon Clark also points out everything that went wrong with the case.
IYO..... an dont u tell me what I think...the mccs made a fairly good choice on messing things up by letting 20+ in apartment when as they say they knew she had been abducted. she knew Maddie was not in there after spending 10 mins searching.
Chief Inspector Olegário de Sousa said that the presence of so many people in the apartment from which she disappeared, had complicated the work of the scientific team. He added that this could have destroyed all the evidence and could prove to be fatal to the investigation.[37]
-
Has any body looked for the child, or are looking to what happened to the child, world of difference, not a trace to her whereabouts.
The Portuguese did. They spent a week, maybe more, physically searching the area around PDL
-
IYO..... an dont u tell me what I think...the mccs made a fairly good choice on messing things up by letting 20+ in apartment when as they say they knew she had been abducted. she knew Maddie was not in there after spending 10 mins searching.
Chief Inspector Olegário de Sousa said that the presence of so many people in the apartment from which she disappeared, had complicated the work of the scientific team. He added that this could have destroyed all the evidence and could prove to be fatal to the investigation.[37]
Now , now , Kizzy, it was the PJ's fault for letting it happen before they knew of a missing child.
-
Has any body looked for the child, or are looking to what happened to the child, world of difference, not a trace to her whereabouts.
IMO No one was looking for Madeleine after Amaral came to his decision.
-
IYO..... an dont u tell me what I think...the mccs made a fairly good choice on messing things up by letting 20+ in apartment when as they say they knew she had been abducted. she knew Maddie was not in there after spending 10 mins searching.
Chief Inspector Olegário de Sousa said that the presence of so many people in the apartment from which she disappeared, had complicated the work of the scientific team. He added that this could have destroyed all the evidence and could prove to be fatal to the investigation.[37]
They searched the apartment for Madeleine. The Police waded through the apartment with dogs. They didn't take the bedding from Madeleine's bed to be forensically tested, the woman searching for fingerprints had no gloves on it was a farce.
-
They searched the apartment for Madeleine. The Police waded through the apartment with dogs. They didn't take the bedding from Madeleine's bed to be forensically tested, the woman searching for fingerprints had no gloves on it was a farce.
Yet only one print was found and it wasn't her's so no contamination of the alleged crime scene, not that any one used the window to half inch Madeleine out.
-
They searched the apartment for Madeleine. The Police waded through the apartment with dogs. They didn't take the bedding from Madeleine's bed to be forensically tested, the woman searching for fingerprints had no gloves on it was a farce.
Any damage done in my opinion was letting 20+ people in ...they found kmcs finger prints yet no one else's it seems.
Did any of the 20+ see the open window that was left open while kmc ran out to the tapas lesaving twins.
If like some think Maddie could have been snached in minutes ...so could the twins have been imo
-
Amaral messed the investigation up. It seems that people are sucked into things because they dislike the 'McCann's as you said the McCann's created this in the first place'. So you believe that Amaral should be awarded for the mess he caused? A little girl was missing and all he could think about was accusing the McCann's with no evidence, then when taken off the case, decided to write a book and poison the name of the McCann's for his own gain.
Kate's book on the other hand, showed the investigation through her eyes. How Amaral turned on them and was not looking for their child.
Jon Clark also points out everything that went wrong with the case.
Is this the same Jon Clark.....seems he doesn't have much of a reputation imo
Once again more “fake news” has been distributed by The Olive Press ex-pat media in Spain.
The Olive Press, edited by Jon Clarke, has a reputation of scrapping up fake news in an attempt to gain ex-pat advertisers operating on Spain’s Costa del Sol & Costa Blanca, although today’s latest claim was a complete “pearler”
Clarke himself, who self proclaims to be an investigative journalist, got his total investigations completely wrong whilst at the same time making libellous comments and accusations.
In a Friday night outburst, Clarke firstly accused us Global247news on a Facebook group known as “Named And Shamed Costa Blanca”, being associated with another title on Spain’s Coast, The Euro Weekly News.
https://global247news.com/2020/07/17/jon-clarke-editor-of-the-olive-press-in-spain-scrapes-out-fake-news-yet-again/
-
The Portuguese did. They spent a week, maybe more, physically searching the area around PDL
No, it was a week, one whole week.
-
Is this the same Jon Clark.....seems he doesn't have much of a reputation imo
Once again more “fake news” has been distributed by The Olive Press ex-pat media in Spain.
The Olive Press, edited by Jon Clarke, has a reputation of scrapping up fake news in an attempt to gain ex-pat advertisers operating on Spain’s Costa del Sol & Costa Blanca, although today’s latest claim was a complete “pearler”
Clarke himself, who self proclaims to be an investigative journalist, got his total investigations completely wrong whilst at the same time making libellous comments and accusations.
In a Friday night outburst, Clarke firstly accused us Global247news on a Facebook group known as “Named And Shamed Costa Blanca”, being associated with another title on Spain’s Coast, The Euro Weekly News.
https://global247news.com/2020/07/17/jon-clarke-editor-of-the-olive-press-in-spain-scrapes-out-fake-news-yet-again/
What a fake and cheap looking website. IMO.
-
What a fake and cheap looking website. IMO.
Just came up along with a lot more. Just google JC
https://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2019/08/did-disgraced-olive-press-journalist.html
A Lie is a Lie is a Lie
How many different Versions of the Truth can be True ?
I detailed previously Clarke’s three separate and distinct ‘Versions of the Truth’, saw them initially as irreconcilable, one with another, and then tried to fuse them together to make a consistent story.
In this I think I was partially successful. But that success is dependant on the admission by Clarke that one other element is false – that of the claimed time of a phone call and the estimated time of departure from the family home in rural Spain.
It is instructive to consider yet again the wording of the statements.
I make no apology for repeating them, so that everyone shall understand the depths to which journalism has sunk, and how Tabloid proprietors and journalists have lost even the scrap of morality and decency they may once have had.
-
Just came up along with a lot more. Just google JC
https://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2019/08/did-disgraced-olive-press-journalist.html
A Lie is a Lie is a Lie
How many different Versions of the Truth can be True ?
I detailed previously Clarke’s three separate and distinct ‘Versions of the Truth’, saw them initially as irreconcilable, one with another, and then tried to fuse them together to make a consistent story.
In this I think I was partially successful. But that success is dependant on the admission by Clarke that one other element is false – that of the claimed time of a phone call and the estimated time of departure from the family home in rural Spain.
It is instructive to consider yet again the wording of the statements.
I make no apology for repeating them, so that everyone shall understand the depths to which journalism has sunk, and how Tabloid proprietors and journalists have lost even the scrap of morality and decency they may once have had.
Just no-marks with a grudge because Jon Clarke doesn’t think the McCanns dunnit and is a successful investigative journalist.
-
Considering the amount of bile that GA gets on this thread it is uncanny how JC...HCW get so much praise yet to me it seems Maddie is just a gain to an end for them.
Saying I believe she is alive then dead...at least GA is consistent with what he thinks happened IMO
-
Considering the amount of bile that GA gets on this thread it is uncanny how JC...HCW get so much praise yet to me it seems Maddie is just a gain to an end for them.
Saying I believe she is alive then dead...at least GA is consistent with what he thinks happened IMO
I haven't changed my mind and I haven't been proved wrong... I understand the evidence.. Amaral doesnt
-
Considering the amount of bile that GA gets on this thread it is uncanny how JC...HCW get so much praise yet to me it seems Maddie is just a gain to an end for them.
Saying I believe she is alive then dead...at least GA is consistent with what he thinks happened IMO
That's because they say what supporters want to hear - IMO
-
Amaral messed the investigation up. It seems that people are sucked into things because they dislike the 'McCann's as you said the McCann's created this in the first place'. So you believe that Amaral should be awarded for the mess he caused? A little girl was missing and all he could think about was accusing the McCann's with no evidence, then when taken off the case, decided to write a book and poison the name of the McCann's for his own gain.
Kate's book on the other hand, showed the investigation through her eyes. How Amaral turned on them and was not looking for their child.
Jon Clark also points out everything that went wrong with the case.
The obsession with Amaral is alive and well I see. Lest we forget, he wasn't in charge of the investigation, Encarnacao and Neves were. According to Kate McCann it was those two who ignored the law too and accused her and her husband of being involved in their daughter's disappearance. They interviewed them with no lawyer present and there's no record of what was said.
"I was in no doubt now that they were trying to make me say I’d killed Madeleine or knew what had happened to her. I might be naive but I’m not stupid." [madeleine]
I've always wondered why this departure from the accepted procedure wasn't reported by the McCanns and why they and their supporters have chosen to concentrate on Amaral, the third in the chain of command. His opinions were clearly shared by his superiors.
-
That's because they say what supporters want to hear - IMO
HCW claims are worthless without evidence... We know amaral had no evidence... We need to wait and see what Wolters has
-
I haven't changed my mind and I haven't been proved wrong... I understand the evidence.. Amaral doesnt
Did I mention any of that what you just posted ..in the post you replied to....no
Ameral is more in the loop than you are D wheres you are just like me ...a poster on a forum with an opinion.
-
The obsession with Amaral is alive and well I see. Lest we forget, he wasn't in charge of the investigation, Encarnacao and Neves were. According to Kate McCann it was those two who ignored the law too and accused her and her husband of being involved in their daughter's disappearance. They interviewed them with no lawyer present and there's no record of what was said.
"I was in no doubt now that they were trying to make me say I’d killed Madeleine or knew what had happened to her. I might be naive but I’m not stupid." [madeleine]
I've always wondered why this departure from the accepted procedure wasn't reported by the McCanns and why they and their supporters have chosen to concentrate on Amaral, the third in the chain of command. His opinions were clearly shared by his superiors.
I suppose it's because Amaral had the temerity to challenge McCann publicly - hence all the bad-mouthing by McCann supporters.
He's not the only one bad-mouthed, but boy, he's certainly public enemy No 1
Futile really as it alters nothing but it allows supporters to vent their spleen.
-
Did I mention any of that what you just posted ..in the post you replied to....no
Ameral is more in the loop than you are D wheres you are just like me ...a poster on a forum with an opinion.
Why don’t you explain to us why Amaral deserves anyone’s respect? What’s he ever done that was so marvellous? Should we overlook his conviction and his bare faced lies to marvel solely on the fact that he wrote a book about the case in which he points the finger at the parents?
-
I suppose it's because Amaral had the temerity to challenge McCann publicly - hence all the bad-mouthing by McCann supporters.
He's not the only one bad-mouthed, but boy, he's certainly public enemy No 1
Futile really as it alters nothing but it allows supporters to vent their spleen.
Every word written on this forum is futile (including and especially yours @)(++(* )
-
Did I mention any of that what you just posted ..in the post you replied to....no
Ameral is more in the loop than you are D wheres you are just like me ...a poster on a forum with an opinion.
I have a massive advantage over Amaral.. I understand the value of the alerts and the dna
Amaral is no more in the loop than I am
-
I have a massive advantage over Amaral.. I understand the value of the alerts and the dna
Amaral is no more in the loop than I am
The ego has landed.
-
I suppose it's because Amaral had the temerity to challenge McCann publicly - hence all the bad-mouthing by McCann supporters.
He's not the only one bad-mouthed, but boy, he's certainly public enemy No 1
Futile really as it alters nothing but it allows supporters to vent their spleen.
I really don't understand why they feel such anger on behalf of others. Especially when those others proved eminently capable of defending their position themselves.
-
I really don't understand why they feel such anger on behalf of others. Especially when those others proved eminently capable of defending their position themselves.
Who do you think is angry... Or are you wrong on that too
-
Why don’t you explain to us why Amaral deserves anyone’s respect? What’s he ever done that was so marvellous? Should we overlook his conviction and his bare faced lies to marvel solely on the fact that he wrote a book about the case in which he points the finger at the parents?
[/quote
]I don't have to explain anything to you VS.... i Know what you think of him and others.
But that is my point you see he does have respect from others ...it isn't all about this forum an what you + think
-
I really don't understand why they feel such anger on behalf of others. Especially when those others proved eminently capable of defending their position themselves.
Unfairness angers me, bullying angers me, bad policing angers me, miscarriages of justice anger me. Stupidity and conspiracy nutjobs anger me (and amuse me too, to be fair) I don’t have to personally suffer any of these things to be angry about them. Why can’t you understand this? Would it be thst lack of empathy thing again?
-
Why don’t you explain to us why Amaral deserves anyone’s respect? What’s he ever done that was so marvellous? Should we overlook his conviction and his bare faced lies to marvel solely on the fact that he wrote a book about the case in which he points the finger at the parents?
[/quote
]I don't have to explain anything to you VS.... i Know what you think of him and others.
But that is my point you see he does have respect from others ...it isn't all about this forum an what you + think
Correct - I have no respect for him, I was just curious to know why you do is all.
-
Correct - I have no respect for him, I was just curious to know why you do is all.
OK,,,,,,,,,,sorry for intruding in your post
-
I really don't understand why they feel such anger on behalf of others. Especially when those others proved eminently capable of defending their position themselves.
It's not just that they feel this angry, I'm puzzled by what it achieves -other than elevated blood pressure.
Perhaps an anger management course would help.
-
It's not just that they feel this angry, I'm puzzled by what it achieves -other than elevated blood pressure.
Perhaps an anger management course would help.
If you’re concerned about our blood pressure perhaps you should resist the temptation to make provocative posts. Of course in realiity you probably hope we all drop dead @)(++(*
-
Unfairness angers me, bullying angers me, bad policing angers me, miscarriages of justice anger me. Stupidity and conspiracy nutjobs anger me (and amuse me too, to be fair) I don’t have to personally suffer any of these things to be angry about them. Why can’t you understand this? Would it be thst lack of empathy thing again?
My, that's a lot of anger. What do you do about all these things which make you angry?
-
The thread title should be revised. ‘Ameral’ - ‘Amaral’.
-
My, that's a lot of anger. What do you do about all these things which make you angry?
Answer my questions and I will answer yours. Ignore my questions and don’t expect answers to yours.
-
It's not just that they feel this angry, I'm puzzled by what it achieves -other than elevated blood pressure.
Perhaps an anger management course would help.
We can't help feeling angry sometimes but we can control how we react and whether we react calmly, rationally and constructively or stormily, irrationally and destructively.
-
We can't help feeling angry sometimes but we can control how we react and whether we react calmly, rationally and constructively or stormily, irrationally and destructively.
Perhaps you’d like to cite some examples of where I have been irrational or destructive? Thanking you calmly and rationally in advance.
-
Perhaps you’d like to cite some examples of where I have been irrational or destructive? Thanking you calmly and rationally in advance.
What makes you think I'm talking about any particular person?
-
What makes you think I'm talking about any particular person?
So you weren’t referring to me? Good. So long as that’s clear.
-
The thread title should be revised. ‘Ameral’ - ‘Amaral’.
I amended the OP for the spelling of Amaral. Thanks.
-
I amended the OP for the spelling of Amaral. Thanks.
Spelling Ameral’s name wrong definitely indicates a lack of respect imo.
-
Any damage done in my opinion was letting 20+ people in ...they found kmcs finger prints yet no one else's it seems.
Did any of the 20+ see the open window that was left open while kmc ran out to the tapas lesaving twins.
If like some think Maddie could have been snached in minutes ...so could the twins have been imo
"letting 20+ people in". Did they let them in? Or were they too distraught about the fact their daughter was missing to even think about a crime scene? What parents actually thinks 'hang on a minute this is a crime scene' when their child is missing? What parent even thinks that the abductor is still lurking to steal two babies when you are screaming to alert your husband that your child is missing.
You don't live in the real world.
-
"letting 20+ people in". Did they let them in? Or were they too distraught about the fact their daughter was missing to even think about a crime scene? What parents actually thinks 'hang on a minute this is a crime scene' when their child is missing? What parent even thinks that the abductor is still lurking to steal two babies when you are screaming to alert your husband that your child is missing.
You don't live in the real world.
According to Kate Gerry was aware;
People had been in and out of the apartment for the last three hours, and until one of the PJ officers stuck a piece of police tape across the doorway of the children’s room, it was Gerry who tried to make sure everyone kept clear of it.
[madeleine]
I wonder who exactly Gerry told to keep clear of the children's room?
According to their statements Kate and Gerry McCann, Fiona Payne, Amy Tierney and Silvia Batista all searched the room and Emma Knight was in and out checking the twins.
-
By the public
I do believe GA should be just as credible as H C W....He was there when what ever happened took place and as yet has not been proved wrong as there has been no conclusion to case or proof maddie was abducted.
quote from thread
In my opinion a lot of people were duped into giving to the fund for Amaral. Calling it 'Justice for Maddie' Collecting on Madeleine's birthday. I believe a lot thought it was going towards the search for her.
Nearly £53.thousand was donated of a £20, thousand target clearly marked - Legal defence for Goncalo Amaral
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_gafund2500.htm
One donation of £1,000 claims to be from 'a very large' group of Met Police officers outraged at the way Amaral has been treated.
The fact that he was there at the time of the incident and saw the initial suspects interviewed renders him probably in the best position to make a judgement call. That said, I don't agree with some of his analysis but then hindsight is a wonderful benefit some 14 years after the event.
I think the Smith evidence was both helpful and unhelpful to him. He is convinced that the man they saw was carrying Madeleine that night and I have much sympathy with that view. Where we differ is that he was led to believe the man seen was Gerry McCann but in my view that was not possible.
-
According to Kate Gerry was aware;
People had been in and out of the apartment for the last three hours, and until one of the PJ officers stuck a piece of police tape across the doorway of the children’s room, it was Gerry who tried to make sure everyone kept clear of it.
[madeleine]
I wonder who exactly Gerry told to keep clear of the children's room?
According to their statements Kate and Gerry McCann, Fiona Payne, Amy Tierney and Silvia Batista all searched the room and Emma Knight was in and out checking the twins.
In such a situation the room should have been closed pending the arrival of the PJ with the parents and other two children being moved to another accomodation.
One has to realise though that such an abduction is extremely rare so it was initially thought that she had merely wandered off. I believe this is what did happen and that she was taken from the nearby street after trying to follow Gerry. Whether this taking from the street was as a result of an accident is another possibility.
-
"letting 20+ people in". Did they let them in? Or were they too distraught about the fact their daughter was missing to even think about a crime scene? What parents actually thinks 'hang on a minute this is a crime scene' when their child is missing? What parent even thinks that the abductor is still lurking to steal two babies when you are screaming to alert your husband that your child is missing.
You don't live in the real world.
The responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the crime scene was the duty of the Portuguese police and nothing at all to do with the victims of the crime.
Any criticism directed at the mistakes made recognise only the botched job the police made of it right from the word go.
In fact had they wanted to destroy evidence they could hardly have made a better job of it.
Madeleine: How the police ruined the forensic evidence in her bedroom
By VANESSA ALLEN
Last updated at 01:22 16 November 2007
Poice searching for Madeleine McCann allowed potentially crucial clues from her bed to be destroyed, it emerged yesterday.
Detectives failed to send her bedding for analysis, even though an abductor could have left fibres, fingerprints or DNA on it.
By the time officers returned to the Ocean Club apartment more than 24 hours after Madeleine's disappearance, cleaners at the holiday complex had washed the sheets, blankets and pillowcase.
A source from the Portuguese police laboratory said: "Some important clue could have been found on those items besides hair, which was what was sent to the institute.
"They forgot that the items in the bedroom could hypothetically have had fibres belonging to a possible abductor or even a fingerprint.
The error is the latest in a series of blunders surrounding the collection of forensic evidence from Kate and Gerry McCann's apartment in Praia da Luz.
Police failed to seal off the apartment as a crime scene, meaning vital samples were contaminated with ash from officers' cigarettes.
Other evidence was trampled under foot by up to 50 people, who left shoe marks and fingerprints.
Officers also allowed the McCanns to move their possessions to another apartment.
Mr and Mrs McCann, both 39, from Leicestershire, have always insisted their daughter was abducted while they ate dinner with friends nearby.
They have been horrified by blunders in the investigation, which they fear could have destroyed their chances of learning what happened to Madeleine.
Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell declined to comment-on the police investigation, but said it was hoped it was being carried out "as professionally and as competently as possible".
Forensics expert Allan Scott said the bedding could have been a vital source of evidence.
"It is very difficult to be in contact with another surface and not leave a trace of yourself behind."
Further forensic sampling was carried out in the apartment in August, after sniffer dogs allegedly found the "scent of death" and microscopic traces of blood.
Scientists have continued to work on the samples in the hope they could still provide a breakthrough.
The revelations came as a lawyer began moves to bring a private prosecution against the McCanns for alleged child neglect.
Anthony Bennett faxed an application for a court summons against the couple to magistrates in Leicestershire.
He said his move was sparked by a 'lack of action' by the Leicestershire authorities.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494203/Madeleine-How-police-ruined-forensic-evidence-bedroom.html
-
The fact that he was there at the time of the incident and saw the initial suspects interviewed renders him probably in the best position to make a judgement call. That said, I don't agree with some of his analysis but then hindsight is a wonderful benefit some 14 years after the event.
I think the Smith evidence was both helpful and unhelpful to him. He is convinced that the man they saw was carrying Madeleine that night and I have much sympathy with that view. Where we differ is that he was led to believe the man seen was Gerry McCann but in my view that was not possible.
I don't see Amaral in any position to make a judgement call. He claims the alerts confirmed Maddies cadaver had been in 5a... He clearly hadn't got a clue and obviously still hasn't after 14 years.
-
In such a situation the room should have been closed pending the arrival of the PJ with the parents and other two children being moved to another accomodation.
One has to realise though that such an abduction is extremely rare so it was initially thought that she had merely wandered off. I believe this is what did happen and that she was taken from the nearby street after trying to follow Gerry. Whether this taking from the street was as a result of an accident is another possibility.
I think Madeleine was removed from the apartment by person or persons unknown. And I think there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that the German investigation is hitting very close to the mark.
On the other hand when one reads of the toleration of paedophilia in a holiday resort in an area where one's child stood a very fair chance of being assaulted in her bed the notion that a child wandering on her own stood a very reasonable (highly likely) chance of wandering into one of these perverts is probably a valid one.
Which I believe has been looked at and dismissed.
Children on holiday in the Algarve had been assaulted under their own roof for years and the local police apparently never got close enough to get a sniff at the perpetrator smelly or not. Fourteen years after Madeleine's disappearance the local police are no closer ... but I think with some of the main players out of the equation there is not the same problem.
-
The responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the crime scene was the duty of the Portuguese police and nothing at all to do with the victims of the crime.
Any criticism directed at the mistakes made recognise only the botched job the police made of it right from the word go.
In fact had they wanted to destroy evidence they could hardly have made a better job of it.
Madeleine: How the police ruined the forensic evidence in her bedroom
By VANESSA ALLEN
Last updated at 01:22 16 November 2007
Poice searching for Madeleine McCann allowed potentially crucial clues from her bed to be destroyed, it emerged yesterday.
Detectives failed to send her bedding for analysis, even though an abductor could have left fibres, fingerprints or DNA on it.
By the time officers returned to the Ocean Club apartment more than 24 hours after Madeleine's disappearance, cleaners at the holiday complex had washed the sheets, blankets and pillowcase.
A source from the Portuguese police laboratory said: "Some important clue could have been found on those items besides hair, which was what was sent to the institute.
"They forgot that the items in the bedroom could hypothetically have had fibres belonging to a possible abductor or even a fingerprint.
The error is the latest in a series of blunders surrounding the collection of forensic evidence from Kate and Gerry McCann's apartment in Praia da Luz.
Police failed to seal off the apartment as a crime scene, meaning vital samples were contaminated with ash from officers' cigarettes.
Other evidence was trampled under foot by up to 50 people, who left shoe marks and fingerprints.
Officers also allowed the McCanns to move their possessions to another apartment.
Mr and Mrs McCann, both 39, from Leicestershire, have always insisted their daughter was abducted while they ate dinner with friends nearby.
They have been horrified by blunders in the investigation, which they fear could have destroyed their chances of learning what happened to Madeleine.
Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell declined to comment-on the police investigation, but said it was hoped it was being carried out "as professionally and as competently as possible".
Forensics expert Allan Scott said the bedding could have been a vital source of evidence.
"It is very difficult to be in contact with another surface and not leave a trace of yourself behind."
Further forensic sampling was carried out in the apartment in August, after sniffer dogs allegedly found the "scent of death" and microscopic traces of blood.
Scientists have continued to work on the samples in the hope they could still provide a breakthrough.
The revelations came as a lawyer began moves to bring a private prosecution against the McCanns for alleged child neglect.
Anthony Bennett faxed an application for a court summons against the couple to magistrates in Leicestershire.
He said his move was sparked by a 'lack of action' by the Leicestershire authorities.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494203/Madeleine-How-police-ruined-forensic-evidence-bedroom.html
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even the 'superior' UK police can underperform despite all the efforts which have been made to ensure best practice.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/bernadette-walker-no-misconduct-cambs-21151900
-
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even the 'superior' UK police can underperform despite all the efforts which have been made to ensure best practice.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/bernadette-walker-no-misconduct-cambs-21151900
I dont think it's hindsight to test the bed clothes for dna. The claim from sceptics is no evidence of an abductor.. It may well be there was but the cleaners washed it away
-
The fact that he was there at the time of the incident and saw the initial suspects interviewed renders him probably in the best position to make a judgement call. That said, I don't agree with some of his analysis but then hindsight is a wonderful benefit some 14 years after the event.
I think the Smith evidence was both helpful and unhelpful to him. He is convinced that the man they saw was carrying Madeleine that night and I have much sympathy with that view. Where we differ is that he was led to believe the man seen was Gerry McCann but in my view that was not possible.
Redwood stated the child bore a description close to that of Madeleine, the only reported child being carried that night bearing that.
-
I dont think it's hindsight to test the bed clothes for dna. The claim from sceptics is no evidence of an abductor.. It may well be there was but the cleaners washed it away
Reading the chapter on The Irish woman’s rape in Portugal in Jon Clarke’s book she was shocked to discover one of her own nails in her bed on returning to the scene of the crime, something the PJ had completely overlooked(if they’d bothered to look at all).
-
Redwood stated the child bore a description close to that of Madeleine, the only reported child being carried that night bearing that.
Not true.
-
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even the 'superior' UK police can underperform despite all the efforts which have been made to ensure best practice.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/bernadette-walker-no-misconduct-cambs-21151900
The Policia Judiciaria botched Madeleine McCann's case from first to last.
Your antipathy towards the British police will not mitigate that fact in the slightest.
-
Not true.
Who described any other child as fitting a description close to that of Madeleine ?
-
Who described any other child as fitting a description close to that of Madeleine ?
Jane Tanner saw a young girl in pink pyjamas being carried. Madeleine was a young girl in pink pyjamas. The Smiths also saw a young girl in pink pjs being carried. None of the witnesses could see the face of either child. The Smiths had the girl in long sleeve pjs, this does not match the parents’ description of the pjs.
-
The Policia Judiciaria botched Madeleine McCann's case from first to last.
Your antipathy towards the British police will not mitigate that fact in the slightest.
Unlike some, I feel antipathy to no-one. Ignoring the shortcomings of the UK police doesn't mean they don't exist.
-
Jane Tanner saw a young girl in pink pyjamas being carried. Madeleine was a young girl in pink pyjamas. The Smiths also saw a young girl in pink pjs being carried. None of the witnesses could see the face of either child. The Smiths had the girl in long sleeve pjs, this does not match the parents’ description of the pjs.
"About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep."
Jane Tanner's description was of a pair of legs & feet with seemingly pink pyjamas.
It doesn't quite compare with long haired child, blonde to light brown, roughly 4 years old.
But if you do see a pair of legs anywhere, be sure to report it to the find madeleine website.
-
Unlike some, I feel antipathy to no-one. Ignoring the shortcomings of the UK police doesn't mean they don't exist.
You seem to think that highlighting a mistake by one police force mitigates the mistakes made by the PJ.
-
This is all 14 years old. I thought we were being told/encouraged to concentrate on the current stuff.
-
"About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep."
Jane Tanner's description was of a pair of legs & feet with seemingly pink pyjamas.
It doesn't quite compare with long haired child, blonde to light brown, roughly 4 years old.
But if you do see a pair of legs anywhere, be sure to report it to the find madeleine website.
Jane Tanner saw a pair of legs belonging to a young child clad in pink. From this it is possible to deduce the age and sex of the child, unless you think it’s possible the child Jane saw belonged to a 10 year old male child?
-
This is all 14 years old. I thought we were being told/encouraged to concentrate on the current stuff.
Good point, probably the only good point you’ve made all thread!
-
You seem to think that highlighting a mistake by one police force mitigates the mistakes made by the PJ.
It was mostly the McCanns and the MSM who insisted that the original investigation was 'botched'. A few British police officers criticised, but that was somewhat arrogant in my opinion. Even now in 2020 the UK police can get it wrong, so criticising other country's police forces is hypocritical imo.
-
Jane Tanner saw a pair of legs belonging to a young child clad in pink. From this it is possible to deduce the age and sex of the child, unless you think it’s possible the child Jane saw belonged to a 10 year old male child?
Well I'm sorry but I think if you showed me the lower leg (since she couldn't have seen the thighs) of an average 4 year old compared to that of a 6 year old, at the distance they were observed, I'm not sure I would see a marked difference myself. So, I suggest the only way we are going to resolve this is to through a thorough and precise scientific study into children's lower legs & feet.
I'll be contacting the Royal Society & applying for a research grant first thing tommorow.
-
Well I'm sorry but I think if you showed me the lower leg (since she couldn't have seen the thighs) of an average 4 year old compared to that of a 6 year old, at the distance they were observed, I'm not sure I would see a marked difference myself. So, I suggest the only way we are going to resolve this is to through a thorough and precise scientific study into children's lower legs & feet.
I'll be contacting the Royal Society & applying for a research grant first thing tommorow.
Let’s hope that keeps you quiet for a bit.
-
Well I'm sorry but I think if you showed me the lower leg (since she couldn't have seen the thighs) of an average 4 year old compared to that of a 6 year old, at the distance they were observed, I'm not sure I would see a marked difference myself. So, I suggest the only way we are going to resolve this is to through a thorough and precise scientific study into children's lower legs & feet.
I'll be contacting the Royal Society & applying for a research grant first thing tommorow.
I think you underestimate maternal instinct. Jane Tanner, a mother, reported what she saw and, in my opinion, was capable to make certain deductions as to the gender of the child she saw being carried away from apartment 5A.
-
I think you underestimate maternal instinct. Jane Tanner, a mother, reported what she saw and, in my opinion, was capable to make certain deductions as to the gender of the child she saw being carried away from apartment 5A.
Wishful thinking on her part - IMO
-
It was mostly the McCanns and the MSM who insisted that the original investigation was 'botched'. A few British police officers criticised, but that was somewhat arrogant in my opinion. Even now in 2020 the UK police can get it wrong, so criticising other country's police forces is hypocritical imo.
I thought it was an impossibility for a national police force to make as many elementary mistakes in a missing child investigation as they did in 1996 and in 2007.
Then one discovers that they didn't bother to keep going with Brueckner who wasn't at home when they called.
-
It was mostly the McCanns and the MSM who insisted that the original investigation was 'botched'. A few British police officers criticised, but that was somewhat arrogant in my opinion. Even now in 2020 the UK police can get it wrong, so criticising other country's police forces is hypocritical imo.
It’s only hypocritical if you claim that your own country’s police force is faultless when it’s not. I don’t think anyone has done that here have they?
-
Jane Tanner saw a young girl in pink pyjamas being carried. Madeleine was a young girl in pink pyjamas. The Smiths also saw a young girl in pink pjs being carried. None of the witnesses could see the face of either child. The Smiths had the girl in long sleeve pjs, this does not match the parents’ description of the pjs.
Yet Redwood clearly says on tape the child being carried by Smithman matched a description to that of Madeleine , Tannermans child obviously didnt.
-
Yet Redwood clearly says on tape the child being carried by Smithman matched a description to that of Madeleine , Tannermans child obviously didnt.
In what ways did Tannerman’s child not match Madeleine? Please list the myriad points of difference below.
-
In what ways did Tannerman’s child not match Madeleine? Please list the myriad points of difference below.
Quite obviously the Smith's didn't immediately see the resemblance some members do. It took Peter thirteen days to wonder if he had dreamt the encounter and having to remind everyone else about it.
-
In what ways did Tannerman’s child not match Madeleine? Please list the myriad points of difference below.
If the child was a Totman it was either a 2 year old girl or a 3 year old boy. The girl was in Toddler 2 creche with the McCann twins and the boy was in the Lobster minis with Madeleine.
Either way, with just a pair of legs and feet, the child being carried could have differed in age, sex, height, hair colour and length.
The child seen by the Smiths was identified as a girl, aged about 4 years, with shoulder length blond hair.
-
If the child was a Totman it was either a 2 year old girl or a 3 year old boy. The girl was in Toddler 2 creche with the McCann twins and the boy was in the Lobster minis with Madeleine.
Either way, with just a pair of legs and feet, the child being carried could have differed in age, sex, height, hair colour and length.
The child seen by the Smiths was identified as a girl, aged about 4 years, with shoulder length blond hair.
Accordng to the actual witness who saw the child and who knew Madeleine personally she felt there was a strong possibility the child was indeed Madeleine, that’s a fact.
-
If the child was a Totman it was either a 2 year old girl or a 3 year old boy. The girl was in Toddler 2 creche with the McCann twins and the boy was in the Lobster minis with Madeleine.
Either way, with just a pair of legs and feet, the child being carried could have differed in age, sex, height, hair colour and length.
The child seen by the Smiths was identified as a girl, aged about 4 years, with shoulder length blond hair.
Wasnt it said the creche was ful of little blonde girls
-
If the child was a Totman it was either a 2 year old girl or a 3 year old boy. The girl was in Toddler 2 creche with the McCann twins and the boy was in the Lobster minis with Madeleine.
Either way, with just a pair of legs and feet, the child being carried could have differed in age, sex, height, hair colour and length.
The child seen by the Smiths was identified as a girl, aged about 4 years, with shoulder length blond hair.
I agree ~ the important point is that around the time it is estimated a child was being abducted a child was seen being carried off from the closest proximity to the scene of the crime.
Until that person carrying the child either comes forward to be identified or is found, this is obviously the closest candidate to have been Madeleine being carried off the scene by an abductor.
-
Accordng to the actual witness who saw the child and who knew Madeleine personally she felt there was a strong possibility the child was indeed Madeleine, that’s a fact.
Are you saying she knew Madeleine so well that she was able to recognise her legs? We know that's not so, because her only thought at the time was that the child might be cold as it lacked a blanket. She didn't think 'what's that man doing carrying Madeleine's legs', did she? Jane saw a man with a child, then was told a child had been abducted. She then assumed a connection.
-
I agree ~ the important point is that around the time it is estimated a child was being abducted a child was seen being carried off from the closest proximity to the scene of the crime.
Until that person carrying the child either comes forward to be identified or is found, this is obviously the closest candidate to have been Madeleine being carried off the scene by an abductor.
The time estimated by her parents and their friends, you mean? The time estimated by Operation Grange differed. Events moved on and the 'abduction' time changed.
-
Are you saying she knew Madeleine so well that she was able to recognise her legs? We know that's not so, because her only thought at the time was that the child might be cold as it lacked a blanket. She didn't think 'what's that man doing carrying Madeleine's legs', did she? Jane saw a man with a child, then was told a child had been abducted. She then assumed a connection.
I'm saying exactly what I'm saying - that she felt there was a strong possibility that the child she saw was Madeleine - if you can provide a cite where she says she doubts (based on the appearance of the legs) that it was Madeleine feel free to cite it.
-
I'm saying exactly what I'm saying - that she felt there was a strong possibility that the child she saw was Madeleine - if you can provide a cite where she says she doubts (based on the appearance of the legs) that it was Madeleine feel free to cite it.
Only in hindsight did she develop that 'feeling', at the time she didn't recognise the child.
-
The time estimated by her parents and their friends, you mean? The time estimated by Operation Grange differed. Events moved on and the 'abduction' time changed.
You've got yourself somewhat tied into this notion that the exact time is imperative. The really, really important issue is that a little girl went missing. That is the fact of the matter.
And if it is your supposition that Scotland Yard have told us every detail of their investigation I think you may very well be up a gum tree.
-
Only in hindsight did she develop that 'feeling', at the time she didn't recognise the child.
Well obviously not, otherwise one would have to ask why she didn't tell the parents she'd just seen their child carried away by a stranger. But do you understand why in retrospect she thought the child was quite possibly Madeleine? It's because of the points of similarity wrt to the child, not because of any points of difference (none were discernible as far as she reported).
-
Only in hindsight did she develop that 'feeling', at the time she didn't recognise the child.
I believe from the instant she heard that Madeleine had disappeared she knew exactly what she had witnessed.
-
Well obviously not, otherwise one would have to ask why she didn't tell the parents she'd just seen their child carried away by a stranger. But do you understand why in retrospect she thought the child was quite possibly Madeleine? It's because of the points of similarity wrt to the child, not because of any points of difference (none were discernible as far as she reported).
So it only became Madeleine because she was reported as missing. Had a different child been reported as missing from that area, Jane would have assumed it was that child imo.
-
So it only became Madeleine because she was reported as missing. Had a different child been reported as missing from that area, Jane would have assumed it was that child imo.
What, even if it was a 10 year old boy? Don't be silly.
-
So it only became Madeleine because she was reported as missing. Had a different child been reported as missing from that area, Jane would have assumed it was that child imo.
Allegedly three children were being carried around on the streets of Praia da Luz on the third of May. Jane Tanner saw a child being carried immediately outside the property it would later be found a child was missing from.
What could be deduced from that fact?
-
Allegedly three children were being carried around on the streets of Praia da Luz on the third of May. Jane Tanner saw a child being carried immediately outside the property it would later be found a child was missing from.
What could be deduced from that fact?
Three? I assume you are suggesting that Operation Grange were mistaken when they identified a holidaymaker with his own child as the man seen by Jane Tanner?
Jane Tanner deduced that she had seen a missing child being carried away, but that doesn't mean she was correct.
-
Three? I assume you are suggesting that Operation Grange were mistaken when they identified a holidaymaker with his own child as the man seen by Jane Tanner?
Jane Tanner deduced that she had seen a missing child being carried away, but that doesn't mean she was correct.
Cite please for Operation Grange identifying the man seen by Jane Tanner.
-
Cite please for Operation Grange identifying the man seen by Jane Tanner.
Update on previous appeal
We believe we have identified the man who was seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child at about 21.15 near the apartment G5A. These images are the original sketch of that person made at the time together with a Met Police photo of the British holidaymaker who we have spoken to and is seen here wearing the clothes he believes he may have been wearing that evening. The images are: man holding child & man without child.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131017085618/http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1257246741786
-
Update on previous appeal
We believe we have identified the man who was seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child at about 21.15 near the apartment G5A. These images are the original sketch of that person made at the time together with a Met Police photo of the British holidaymaker who we have spoken to and is seen here wearing the clothes he believes he may have been wearing that evening. The images are: man holding child & man without child.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131017085618/http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1257246741786
And that is the very best you can do "We believe" Not definitive is it. In the interim we have ~
Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry
Contact Us
Have you seen these people? Do you know who they might be?
These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based on more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation@findmadeleine.com.
Jane Tanner's sighting whether it was of another holidaymaker carrying his own daughter or if it was an abductor in the act of capturing Madeleine is not known.
But what is certain is that neither the man seen by Jane nor the child he was carrying has been identified. Please don't pretend that he has.
-
And that is the very best you can do "We believe" Not definitive is it. In the interim we have ~
Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry
Contact Us
Have you seen these people? Do you know who they might be?
These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based on more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation@findmadeleine.com.
Jane Tanner's sighting whether it was of another holidaymaker carrying his own daughter or if it was an abductor in the act of capturing Madeleine is not known.
But what is certain is that neither the man seen by Jane nor the child he was carrying has been identified. Please don't pretend that he has.
Why are you quoting the McCann website? Obviously they disagree with the Met, just as you seem to.
-
Why are you quoting the McCann website? Obviously they disagree with the Met, just as you seem to.
Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry
Contact Us
Have you seen these people? Do you know who they might be?
These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based on more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment.
However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation@findmadeleine.com.
OUCH! I seem to have hit a wee nerve there n'est ce pas.
The McCanns don't do anything which hasn't been run past the official investigation not even down to giving interviews as Jon Clarke can attest.
So what on earth would they be doing plastering police contacts all over the official website when requesting information about unknown people? I think as usual you are entirely wrong in thinking they are not singing from the same hymnsheet.
-
Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry
Contact Us
Have you seen these people? Do you know who they might be?
These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based on more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment.
However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation@findmadeleine.com.
OUCH! I seem to have hit a wee nerve there n'est ce pas.
The McCanns don't do anything which hasn't been run past the official investigation not even down to giving interviews as Jon Clarke can attest.
So what on earth would they be doing plastering police contacts all over the official website when requesting information about unknown people? I think as usual you are entirely wrong in thinking they are not singing from the same hymnsheet.
If that's what you want to believe, that's your choice. The McCanns may still be looking for Tanner's man, but the Met. aren't imo.
-
If that's what you want to believe, that's your choice. The McCanns may still be looking for Tanner's man, but the Met. aren't imo.
The McCann's aren't 'looking' for anyone. They don't need to do that at the moment. The police of at least three different countries - probably more when one reads of the far range the Shengen zone allowed the vilest of criminals - are doing that for them.
You studiously avoid the pertinent question asked of you by VS about Amaral's deliberate lies regarding the present German prime suspect, Brueckner.
I must say I find quite extraordinary your unfriendly posts which in my opinion have been used to throw as much dirt as is humanly possible on a couple who have moved heaven and earth to find their daughter. All while ignoring a man who is doing his utmost to deceive the investigators looking for her.
Why isn't your enquiring mind asking why Amaral lied about Brueckner - the prime suspect in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, remember - having dreadlocks when he really did not.
I wish I had been a fly on Amaral's wall when the video exposing that lie was released. It really was an enormous lie and quite a spectacular denouement of it when all is said and done.
I'm not surprised you are not keen to discuss it - but it is On Topic here - so does VS get her answer or are we left to wonder 😁
-
If that's what you want to believe, that's your choice. The McCanns may still be looking for Tanner's man, but the Met. aren't imo.
The Germans say they are almost certain Bruckener did for Madeleine and its held to be true, Redwood said they're almost certain Tannerman wasn't an abductor (did such an event occur ?) doubt is brought in that he's all but ruled out, go figure. Clearly the patsy sit's better than old smithy
-
The Germans say they are almost certain Bruckener did for Madeleine and its held to be true, Redwood said they're almost certain Tannerman wasn't an abductor (did such an event occur ?) doubt is brought in that he's all but ruled out, go figure. Clearly the patsy sit's better than old smithy
An apostrophe in a verb?? What new horror is this!
-
As horrifying as no apostrophe in a contraction.
-
As horrifying as no apostrophe in a contraction.
Strange isn’t it, how they disappear from the places they should be and appear in places they shouldn’t.
-
An apostrophe in a verb?? What new horror is this!
I'm starting to think he's trolling you.
-
An apostrophe in a verb?? What new horror is this!
Play nicely please. Spelling and grammar are not prized as they once were, because insisting that they're correct inhibits the free expression of ideas.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9463611/JOHN-HUMPHRYS-hits-universities-say-correct-spelling-grammar-elite.html
-
I'm starting to think he's trolling you.
Strange way of doing it, pretending to be thick.
-
Play nicely please. Spelling and grammar are not prized as they once were, because insisting that they're correct inhibits the free expression of ideas.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9463611/JOHN-HUMPHRYS-hits-universities-say-correct-spelling-grammar-elite.html
worlds gone mad innit
-
Strange way of doing it, pretending to be thick.
Are you equating bad spelling/grammar with lack of intellect? The two are not related;
https://leelofland.com/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/
-
Are you equating bad spelling/grammar with lack of intellect? The two are not related;
https://leelofland.com/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/
This isn’t an issue of spelling it’s an issue of following a very simple grammatical rule. “Sits” is sprelt correctly but for some bizarre reason the poster feels it necessary to insert apostrophes in front of the letter s at the end of completely random words. That’s ignorant imo.
-
This isn’t an issue of spelling it’s an issue of following a very simple grammatical rule. “Sits” is sprelt correctly but for some bizarre reason the poster feels it necessary to insert apostrophes in front of the letter s at the end of completely random words. That’s ignorant imo.
Highlighting other people's errors can also be described as ignorant, as in impolite and rude;
An example of ignorant is impolite behavior that goes against the standard custom of proper manners.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/ignorant
-
Highlighting other people's errors can also be described as ignorant, as in impolite and rude;
An example of ignorant is impolite behavior that goes against the standard custom of proper manners.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/ignorant
All you calling me ignorant? I trust you are not as that would be, well, ignorant!