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: faithlilly on April 15, 2013, 11:23:24 AM
-
Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?
-
I should think you are quite safe as long as you don't defame innocent people - are you able to post without doing so?
Tell me, are admin here experts on defamation law or are they just going to report things willy nilly on the off chance it may be libellous ?
-
Oh, for heaven's sake! As Martha says, you don't defame, you post, discuss, even argue a bit, that's normal, lying and distorting is not.
-
One person's defamation is another person's legitimate comment or question.
I don't believe the McCanns are telling either the full story of what happened or that the details they are revealing are all true. I have no doubt whatsoever that many of you will splutter with indignation about that simple statement I've made. If you think it's defamatory or libellous, you need your heads seeing to.
-
I should think you are quite safe as long as you don't defame innocent people - are you able to post without doing so?
Tell me, are admin here experts on defamation law or are they just going to report things willy nilly on the off chance it may be libellous ?
If a person backs up a claim with evidence for that claim then it is probably not libellous.
The problem comes when people make claims (in this case, about the McCanns) without posting any evidence to back up those claims. Those claims could be potential libel and if in the considered opinion (I very much doubt any report would simply be willy nilly as you claim.) of moderators they appear to be so, reported as such. It would be up to others then to determine whether it is actual libel.
There are occasions where the claims made are clearly untrue and are actually contradicted by evidence which is easily available. Those could be reported as probable libel.
Personally, as I have no intention of libeling anyone and at all times endeavour only to post evidenced claims and I won't be abusing anyone on the forum then I won't be worrying at all.
I suspect people would only worry if they thought that what they were doing was likely to be considered abusive.
I know that there are many people on Twitter, for example, who post abusively there because they think it is unregulated and they find the thrill of being abusive quite intoxicating. Thankfully, I don't find I need that kind of thrill. I find life is perfectly satisfying without having to be so offensive.
Personally, when I see abuse happening I don't turn a blind eye. I do whatever I can to ensure that it stops. I think that is the decent thing to do. Those who either abuse others or even those who simply condone such abuse (for example, by criticising others who report their concerns) are in my view beneath contempt.
-
Oh, for heaven's sake! As Martha says, you don't defame, you post, discuss, even argue a bit, that's normal, lying and distorting is not.
Seems admin thinks that some of the waiters employed by the OC were lying and distorting the truth with malicious intent so what hope that we get a fair hearing ?
-
@ gilet
Of course you do mean the abuse from both sides of the divide, don't you ?
-
Oh, for heaven's sake! As Martha says, you don't defame, you post, discuss, even argue a bit, that's normal, lying and distorting is not.
Seems admin thinks that some of the waiters employed by the OC were lying and distorting the truth with malicious intent so what hope that we get a fair hearing ?
If you feel that you may end up in trouble, why not just close your membership and go elsewhere? Or continue posting but making sure you can supply cast iron proof of what you are claiming.
-
One person's defamation is another person's legitimate comment or question.
I don't believe the McCanns are telling either the full story of what happened or that the details they are revealing are all true. I have no doubt whatsoever that many of you will splutter with indignation about that simple statement I've made. If you think it's defamatory or libellous, you need your heads seeing to.
The part of your post which I have highlighted is simply ridiculous. Do you not understand that defamation is a serious offence?
Legitimate comment is not the same (as you rather ridiculously claim) the same as defamation. The former is legal, the latter a crime.
Abuse of others is also not legitimate comment. It is offensive behaviour at the lowest level and a crime in some circumstances.
That you prefer to post such silliness in defence of the indefensible tells us more about you than about anything else. That you criticise those who are prepared to report what they believe is abuse rather than the potential abusers is very revealing.
For example, I believe it is correct and legitimate to call the videos from Hideho which have been shown to contain inaccuracies as abusive to the McCanns. Hideho has chosen to claim pride in the lies and distortions she has posted in them. And she has run away from providing any defence for the claims she has made there.
If someone was to report her lies to the authorities I wonder would you criticise that person rather than the liar, Hideho herself? In any civilised society it is incumbent on citizens to report what they believe is wrongdoing, don't you think so?
-
@ gilet
Of course you do mean the abuse from both sides of the divide, don't you ?
In relation to this thread I mean specifically serious abuse towards the McCanns. I don't condone the "willy nilly" reporting of minor things about anyone.
If you can provide any evidence of any serious abuse towards anyone else then please open a new thread and we can discuss it there without distracting from the point of your own thread here.
The reality is that there are some people (yourself included) who are deliberately closing your eyes to the fact that here and on Twitter there is serious abuse directed at the McCanns. By ignoring that abuse you are telling us a great deal about your underlying motives.
-
@ gilet
So do you believe asking legitimate questions based on the evidence in the files and drawing conclusions from that evidence is 'abuse' ?
-
I think that claiming the McCanns and their friends have fabricated their statements in order to cover-up the crime of hiding a body is defamation. "Asking questions" about the McCanns and their friends (with the clear implication being that you think they are hiding something), publicly on the internet where everyone can read the questions, and repeatedly over a period of months and years amounts to an abusive and prolonged campaign of defamation in my book..
Can I assume then Martha you are not an expert on defamation law either ?
-
@ gilet
So do you believe asking legitimate questions based on the evidence in the files and drawing conclusions from that evidence is 'abuse' ?
No, I do not.
But I do believe that posting lies is abuse. I do believe that posting questions in a way in which wrongdoing is clearly insinuated is abuse (it can constitute the crime of libel to do that). I do believe that posting specific denigratory claims about people unsupported by evidence is abuse. I do believe that picking and choosing evidence to suit an agenda is abusive. I do believe that leaving lies online when they have been proven to be such is abusive.
If you are unable to accept that such abuse is frequently posted in various places about the McCanns then you really need to read more widely.
As for people posting legitimate (non libelous) questions then there is (returning to the specific topic of the thread) no reason to worry about being reported and therefore no need to worry about posting on this forum.
I repeat, only those who are posting such abuse need worry.
-
I think that claiming the McCanns and their friends have fabricated their statements in order to cover-up the crime of hiding a body is defamation. "Asking questions" about the McCanns and their friends (with the clear implication being that you think they are hiding something), publicly on the internet where everyone can read the questions, and repeatedly over a period of months and years amounts to an abusive and prolonged campaign of defamation in my book..
Can I assume then Martha you are not an expert on defamation law either ?
Make whatever assumptions you like.
Certainly by English law, Martha is bang on right in every last detail
-
I think that claiming the McCanns and their friends have fabricated their statements in order to cover-up the crime of hiding a body is defamation. "Asking questions" about the McCanns and their friends (with the clear implication being that you think they are hiding something), publicly on the internet where everyone can read the questions, and repeatedly over a period of months and years amounts to an abusive and prolonged campaign of defamation in my book..
Can I assume then Martha you are not an expert on defamation law either ?
Your point, Faithlilly, is ridiculous and in my opinion makes you look very foolish indeed.
No-one needs to be an expert in any law to report a potential crime.
If I observe a person hitting another person in the street and I call the police I won't be criticised for not being an expert on section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 or the Offences against the Person Act of 1861 etc. I will be seen to be doing my duty.
If I observe a person I believe to be undertaking a burglary in a neighbour's property I won't be criticised for not being familiar with Section 9 of the Theft Act. I will be seen to be doing a civic duty.
In exactly the same way any person who sees what they believe is illegal abuse (online or otherwise) and reports what they consider to be abuse of another person is doing their civic duty.
It is up to the authorities to whom the report was made to determine whether the action is illegal or not.
Can I assume that you would not report a burglary that was happening, or an assault because you are not an expert in the relevant laws? Or would you simply do your civic duty?
-
I think that claiming the McCanns and their friends have fabricated their statements in order to cover-up the crime of hiding a body is defamation. "Asking questions" about the McCanns and their friends (with the clear implication being that you think they are hiding something), publicly on the internet where everyone can read the questions, and repeatedly over a period of months and years amounts to an abusive and prolonged campaign of defamation in my book..
And with that response you've rather neatly demonstrated the point I made in my first post about how some will view legitimate questioning as defamation. Contrary to your mistaken opinion, I wasn't defining the two as interchangeable.
-
Faithlilly. In answer to your question. As a general principle, if you consider that everything you put in writing in the public domain COULD be used in court, either by the prosection or the defence, and act accordingly you will not go far wrong.
-
...and I notice that those that squawk the loudest about those who question the McCanns are often the quietest when similar, or worse, abuse is thrown at Amaral, any of his colleagues, the PJ at large, Tony Bennett, Martin Grime and in fact anyone that dares to doubt "the word".
The irony is that the McCanns, by their actions in leaving their children alone ("well within the bounds of responsible parenting" my bum) and then using the media for their own purposes have laid themselves open to this abuse, whereas apart from Tony Bennett and one or two others perhaps, those targeted by McCann supporters are pretty much just doing their jobs.
-
I think that claiming the McCanns and their friends have fabricated their statements in order to cover-up the crime of hiding a body is defamation. "Asking questions" about the McCanns and their friends (with the clear implication being that you think they are hiding something), publicly on the internet where everyone can read the questions, and repeatedly over a period of months and years amounts to an abusive and prolonged campaign of defamation in my book..
And with that response you've rather neatly demonstrated the point I made in my first post about how some will view legitimate questioning as defamation. Contrary to your mistaken opinion, I wasn't defining the two as interchangeable.
Legitmate questions are not the same as what Martha has described. That you cannot see the difference is a great shame.
There is no threat to anyone who posts legitimate questions here on this forum. There is no reason any such persons would ever be reported as that is what the forum is for.
However if you or I or anyone else sees what we believe to be defamatory questioning as described by Martha then it is our right (and I might go so far as to say, our duty) to report that we believe a crime is being committed.
If people choose to post defamation or abuse or lies about others they can never really believe it is safe to do so unless they are complete fools.
-
...and I notice that those that squawk the loudest about those who question the McCanns are often the quietest when similar, or worse, abuse is thrown at Amaral, any of his colleagues, the PJ at large, Tony Bennett, Martin Grime and in fact anyone that dares to doubt "the word".
The irony is that the McCanns, by their actions in leaving their children alone ("well within the bounds of responsible parenting" my bum) and then using the media for their own purposes have laid themselves open to this abuse, whereas apart from Tony Bennett and one or two others perhaps, those targeted by McCann supporters are pretty much just doing their jobs.
Isn't it ironic that two of the people you mention have criminal convictions for their behaviour?
However, when you demonstrate that the people you have mentioned have had the same or worse abuse thrown at them for six years than the McCanns, maybe, just maybe people might take you seriously.
The McCanns have never been charged with any crime. The PT authorities who investgated them found no evidence of any crime against them. You, on the other hand, an amateur online armchair plod think you know better. How laughable you look?
And your claim that Amaral was simply doing his job makes you look even more laughable. Since when has it been the "job" of a police officer who was booted off a case for his own appalling behaviour to write a "thesis" about the crime he failed to solve and try to earn money from that?
When Bennett interfered and Amaral chose to make a personal profit from the case they became legitimate targets for questioning.
-
@ ferryman
So do you believe asking questions with regard to Martin Grimes profile in such a way that wrongdoing is suggested is libellous or is it simply the people with access to the funds to monitor forums, twitter etc and the money to launch expensive litigation who should be protected ?
-
Depends.
If it turns out that SYP really did send a 6 year old police dog to America to be trained in ways actually illegal in the whole of the United Kingom; if it turns out that SYP are wrong in saying Eddie has been involved in 37 cases and Grime right in stating over 200; if turns out that Grime, as a full-time Police Constable with South Yorkshire Police, was instrumental in arranging training programmes in the US, then I have assuredly libelled Grime by suggesting all these things are not true ...
-
Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?
I am not on twitter so this is the first I've heard of this
I would like confirmation though because my personal details are held by the UK Justice forum, and if there is any question of personal details being given to others ( for any reason ) then it is of great concern
Is it true Admin ... are you acting on the McCanns' behalf by collecting details of 'abuse' toward them ?
-
@ ferryman
So do you believe asking questions with regard to Martin Grimes profile in such a way that wrongdoing is suggested is libellous or is it simply the people with access to the funds to monitor forums, twitter etc and the money to launch expensive litigation who should be protected ?
Anyone can report what they believe to be a crime taking place.
What has your point about funds got to do with anything? It costs nothing to report something by email or by phone (well it is included in the phone and internet prices). There is no litigation involved.
This thread (as you should know because you started it) is simply about people reporting what they believe may be criminal abuse.
Am I wrong in thinking that you believe people should not report crime when they believe it is occurring because that is certainly the drift of your posting on this thread?
-
Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?
I am not on twitter so this is the first I've heard of this
I would like confirmation though because my personal details are held by the UK Justice forum, and if there is any question of personal details being given to others ( for any reason ) then it is of great concern
Is it true Admin ... are you acting on the McCanns' behalf by collecting details of 'abuse' toward them ?
Twitter? Mmmm! No mention of Twitter in the opening post or thread title!
Are you another person who believes that reporting potential crime to the authorities is wrong? Where does this assumption it is the McCanns who are behind this come from? Any evidence or is it just a wild guess? It could in fact be anyone who has made the request. What does it matter who? If anyone at all sees what they believe is a crime being committed against someone should they simply ignore it or should they tell someone?
-
Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?
I am not on twitter so this is the first I've heard of this
I would like confirmation though because my personal details are held by the UK Justice forum, and if there is any question of personal details being given to others ( for any reason ) then it is of great concern
Is it true Admin ... are you acting on the McCanns' behalf by collecting details of 'abuse' toward them ?
Twitter? Mmmm! No mention of Twitter in the opening post or thread title!
Are you another person who believes that reporting potential crime to the authorities is wrong? Where does this assumption it is the McCanns who are behind this come from? Any evidence or is it just a wild guess? It could in fact be anyone who has made the request. What does it matter who? If anyone at all sees what they believe is a crime being committed against someone should they simply ignore it or should they tell someone?
I am asking the Justice Forum Admin to confirm whether or not they are collecting information of 'abuse' against the McCanns
If it is true, then does that mean members who post on this forum are at risk of being judged 'abusive' and added to 'the list' ?
Who is this 'list of McCann abusers' for ... who asked for it ?
And, most importantly, will personal details of members of this forum be passed to others ?
These are very relevent and important questions, and as a member who has trusted this forum with my personal details, I feel I am perfectly entitled to ask them
-
I am asking the Justice Forum Admin to confirm whether or not they are collecting information of 'abuse' against the McCanns
If it is true, then does that mean members who post on this forum are at risk of being judged 'abusive' and added to 'the list' ?
Who is this 'list of McCann abusers' for ... who asked for it ?
And, most importantly, will personal details of members of this forum be passed to others ?
These are very relevent and important questions, and as a member who has trusted this forum with my personal details, I feel I am perfectly entitled to ask them
I will answer that for you icabodcrane and can confirm that we have been asked by twitter to keep a record of anything which has been directed at our sister site and which may be considered abusive or libellous. Anyone who uses that particular social media site and who has reported abuse will be aware of this.
As regards this forum, there are ample mechanisms in place to deal with any unacceptable conduct. Personal registration details are never passed to any third party but may be requested under police powers as part of an investigation or if subject to a Court Order.
I trust this helps?
-
Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?
I am not on twitter so this is the first I've heard of this
I would like confirmation though because my personal details are held by the UK Justice forum, and if there is any question of personal details being given to others ( for any reason ) then it is of great concern
Is it true Admin ... are you acting on the McCanns' behalf by collecting details of 'abuse' toward them ?
Twitter? Mmmm! No mention of Twitter in the opening post or thread title!
Are you another person who believes that reporting potential crime to the authorities is wrong? Where does this assumption it is the McCanns who are behind this come from? Any evidence or is it just a wild guess? It could in fact be anyone who has made the request. What does it matter who? If anyone at all sees what they believe is a crime being committed against someone should they simply ignore it or should they tell someone?
I am asking the Justice Forum Admin to confirm whether or not they are collecting information of 'abuse' against the McCanns
If it is true, then does that mean members who post on this forum are at risk of being judged 'abusive' and added to 'the list' ?
Who is this 'list of McCann abusers' for ... who asked for it ?
And, most importantly, will personal details of members of this forum be passed to others ?
These are very relevent and important questions, and as a member who has trusted this forum with my personal details, I feel I am perfectly entitled to ask them
No-one who is behaving properly, who knows they have done nothing wrong would need to fear.
It is interesting that you clearly feel such a need and are with other anti-McCann posters here demonstrating that need by such posts.
I know I have nothing to fear as I know I have done nothing wrong and have posted absolutely nothing which could be described as abusive.
I wonder why you and other anti-McCanns are so disturbed by this?
The only personal detail you have trusted anyone here with is your IP and your email address. Unless you are a total fool and have used a personal email address then the only way you can be identified is if the authorities initiate a full blown police case against you and ask your ISP to identify you. Are you really that worried or are you playing a silly game here I wonder?
-
I am asking the Justice Forum Admin to confirm whether or not they are collecting information of 'abuse' against the McCanns
If it is true, then does that mean members who post on this forum are at risk of being judged 'abusive' and added to 'the list' ?
Who is this 'list of McCann abusers' for ... who asked for it ?
And, most importantly, will personal details of members of this forum be passed to others ?
These are very relevent and important questions, and as a member who has trusted this forum with my personal details, I feel I am perfectly entitled to ask them
I will answer that for you icabodcrane and can confirm that we have been asked by twitter to keep a record of anything which has been directed at our sister site and which may be considered abusive or libellous. Anyone who uses that particular social media site and who has reported abuse will be aware of this.
As regards this forum, there are ample mechanisms in place to deal with any unacceptable conduct. Personal registration details are never passed to any third party but may be requested under police powers as part of an investigation or if subject to a Court Order.
I trust this helps?
Thanks for the clarification.
-
Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?
I am not on twitter so this is the first I've heard of this
I would like confirmation though because my personal details are held by the UK Justice forum, and if there is any question of personal details being given to others ( for any reason ) then it is of great concern
Is it true Admin ... are you acting on the McCanns' behalf by collecting details of 'abuse' toward them ?
Twitter? Mmmm! No mention of Twitter in the opening post or thread title!
Are you another person who believes that reporting potential crime to the authorities is wrong? Where does this assumption it is the McCanns who are behind this come from? Any evidence or is it just a wild guess? It could in fact be anyone who has made the request. What does it matter who? If anyone at all sees what they believe is a crime being committed against someone should they simply ignore it or should they tell someone?
I am asking the Justice Forum Admin to confirm whether or not they are collecting information of 'abuse' against the McCanns
If it is true, then does that mean members who post on this forum are at risk of being judged 'abusive' and added to 'the list' ?
Who is this 'list of McCann abusers' for ... who asked for it ?
And, most importantly, will personal details of members of this forum be passed to others ?
These are very relevent and important questions, and as a member who has trusted this forum with my personal details, I feel I am perfectly entitled to ask them
You really shouldn't judge other forums admin, like Bennett. He is the only one I have known pass personal details of members to others.
Not a clever move, on his part, the list he sent me by email, sometime ago, contained, hundreds of log in names, along with real names and email address's.
Now if I was as underhand as some, I could use these, just like he did.
-
I am asking the Justice Forum Admin to confirm whether or not they are collecting information of 'abuse' against the McCanns
If it is true, then does that mean members who post on this forum are at risk of being judged 'abusive' and added to 'the list' ?
Who is this 'list of McCann abusers' for ... who asked for it ?
And, most importantly, will personal details of members of this forum be passed to others ?
These are very relevent and important questions, and as a member who has trusted this forum with my personal details, I feel I am perfectly entitled to ask them
I will answer that for you icabodcrane and can confirm that we have been asked by twitter to keep a record of anything which has been directed at our sister site and which may be considered abusive or libellous. Anyone who uses that particular social media site and who has reported abuse will be aware of this.
As regards this forum, there are ample mechanisms in place to deal with any unacceptable conduct. Personal registration details are never passed to any third party but may be requested under police powers as part of an investigation or if subject to a Court Order.
I trust this helps?
Thankyou for that explanation and reassurance
-
I should think you are quite safe as long as you don't defame innocent people - are you able to post without doing so?
Tell me, are admin here experts on defamation law or are they just going to report things willy nilly on the off chance it may be libellous ?
If a person backs up a claim with evidence for that claim then it is probably not libellous.
The problem comes when people make claims (in this case, about the McCanns) without posting any evidence to back up those claims. Those claims could be potential libel and if in the considered opinion (I very much doubt any report would simply be willy nilly as you claim.) of moderators they appear to be so, reported as such. It would be up to others then to determine whether it is actual libel.
There are occasions where the claims made are clearly untrue and are actually contradicted by evidence which is easily available. Those could be reported as probable libel.
Personally, as I have no intention of libeling anyone and at all times endeavour only to post evidenced claims and I won't be abusing anyone on the forum then I won't be worrying at all.
I suspect people would only worry if they thought that what they were doing was likely to be considered abusive.
I know that there are many people on Twitter, for example, who post abusively there because they think it is unregulated and they find the thrill of being abusive quite intoxicating. Thankfully, I don't find I need that kind of thrill. I find life is perfectly satisfying without having to be so offensive.
Personally, when I see abuse happening I don't turn a blind eye. I do whatever I can to ensure that it stops. I think that is the decent thing to do. Those who either abuse others or even those who simply condone such abuse (for example, by criticising others who report their concerns) are in my view beneath contempt.
If posters weren't anonymous, they would be more careful, imo (I use my real name).
Libel is certainly an issue, but disinformation is not less one. Not that speculating has no value, it's challenging, but it could be stuck in a special thread.
-
@ gilet
Of course you do mean the abuse from both sides of the divide, don't you ?
In relation to this thread I mean specifically serious abuse towards the McCanns. I don't condone the "willy nilly" reporting of minor things about anyone.
If you can provide any evidence of any serious abuse towards anyone else then please open a new thread and we can discuss it there without distracting from the point of your own thread here.
The reality is that there are some people (yourself included) who are deliberately closing your eyes to the fact that here and on Twitter there is serious abuse directed at the McCanns. By ignoring that abuse you are telling us a great deal about your underlying motives.
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
-
I think that claiming the McCanns and their friends have fabricated their statements in order to cover-up the crime of hiding a body is defamation. "Asking questions" about the McCanns and their friends (with the clear implication being that you think they are hiding something), publicly on the internet where everyone can read the questions, and repeatedly over a period of months and years amounts to an abusive and prolonged campaign of defamation in my book..
This is right and a good reason to try not to solve this case (how could we ?) but to blow myths.
Personally I find nothing to suggest the TP7 lied to cover the disposal of a corpse. I've a doubt concerning the other two, mainly because right away they lied about the modus operandi to their families and friends. I can understand why they did, but it had disturbing consequences they did nothing to dissipate, like "sorry we thought they had been forced, sorry we were out of our minds and erased clues touching them"). One of the effects of this lie is that any one, believing a little girl was snatched by a predator who jemmied shutters and window, would criticize a police who spent the precious golden hours trying to find where the little girl had wandered off.
-
I think that claiming the McCanns and their friends have fabricated their statements in order to cover-up the crime of hiding a body is defamation. "Asking questions" about the McCanns and their friends (with the clear implication being that you think they are hiding something), publicly on the internet where everyone can read the questions, and repeatedly over a period of months and years amounts to an abusive and prolonged campaign of defamation in my book..
This is right and a good reason to try not to solve this case (how could we ?) but to blow myths.
Personally I find nothing to suggest the TP7 lied to cover the disposal of a corpse. I've a doubt concerning the other two, mainly because right away they lied about the modus operandi to their families and friends. I can understand why they did, but it had disturbing consequences they did nothing to dissipate, like "sorry we thought they had been forced, sorry we were out of our minds and erased clues touching them"). One of the effects of this lie is that any one, believing a little girl was snatched by a predator who jemmied shutters and window, would criticize a police who spent the precious golden hours trying to find where the little girl had wandered off.
It is your opinion that the McCanns lied. It is not mine as there is no proof of that. You have no idea what they believed at the time and calling their comments lies is abusive unless you make it clear that is simply your opinion.
-
Faithlilly. In answer to your question. As a general principle, if you consider that everything you put in writing in the public domain COULD be used in court, either by the prosection or the defence, and act accordingly you will not go far wrong.
I find it a good idea. Forces one to read and re-read before sending.
-
...and I notice that those that squawk the loudest about those who question the McCanns are often the quietest when similar, or worse, abuse is thrown at Amaral, any of his colleagues, the PJ at large, Tony Bennett, Martin Grime and in fact anyone that dares to doubt "the word".
I have nothing for or against Gonçalo Amaral, but after reading incredible hatred against him, I can't but feel some compassion. So insults are really counterproductive.
-
...the crime he (Amaral) failed to solve and try to earn money from that?
This, Gilet, for me is defamatory. Things are much more complex than that.
-
Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?
I hope so. I offer my info to their attorneys as soon as they get their asses here and request me. I would love to see them in Court.
-
...the crime he (Amaral) failed to solve and try to earn money from that?
This, Gilet, for me is defamatory. Things are much more complex than that.
That is a factual statement. When you post facts you cannot be accused of defamation.
Do you really believe he solved the case? No? Then it is factual to state that he did not solve the case. No defamation there then.
Do you deny that he wrote a book which was going to earn money? No? Then it is factual to state that he tried to earn money by writing that book. No defamation there then.
Your attempt to claim that what I posted in your quote is defamation is so crass and ridiculous that it makes Tom and Gerry cartoons look positively real. If that is the best example you can find you really are showing desperation.
?>)()<
-
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?
Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you? And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?
So is it a pure coincidence?
Or did you lie about this?
Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?
We deserve the truth.
-
It is your opinion that the McCanns lied. It is not mine as there is no proof of that. You have no idea what they believed at the time and calling their comments lies is abusive unless you make it clear that is simply your opinion.
Do you doubt instead all those who said they received phone calls describing forced shutters and window, doors all locked, etc. ? The probability various people, some not communicating to one another, invented the same story is very dubious.
Anyhow, we know the shutters and window weren't forced, so why did Clarence Mitchell wait months (25 Octobre 2007) before admitting this on RTÉ (Prime Time) ?
-
Many people here would have a lot to respond to if legality was to be imposed, starting by some moderators that are biased and offer unfounded opinions.
But we know that the UK is a paradise for predators of the soul when the victims are foreigners.
Nevertheless, if I were you I would just ignore those carter-ruckers and the likes, they only intervene when someone is going into their pockets, and the McCs are just not getting enough charity money to pay them. For them we are less then mosquitos.
And if they want to fight me because I say their clients are liars and are involved in their daughters disappearance, and there is no abduction, so be it.
As a free citizen I have a right to free thinking and speech
I'll rather speak than speach.
-
Why on earth should the McCanns publicly apologise for believing in the first instance that the apartment shutters had been forced? Who has been damaged by this supposed lie? It really is nonsense to expect the McCanns to issue public retractions over things like this.
Assuming they "believed" is your belief, because they never said they had believed this and didn't pretend to the GNR nor to the PJ they had found forced shutters and window, whereas, meanwhile they were telling this to their UK circle. You could argue that the lie was "internal" and that they're not responsible if their family and friends spread it to the media. I would agree with that, had they corrected.
-
Many people here would have a lot to respond to if legality was to be imposed, starting by some moderators that are biased and offer unfounded opinions.
But we know that the UK is a paradise for predators of the soul when the victims are foreigners.
Nevertheless, if I were you I would just ignore those carter-ruckers and the likes, they only intervene when someone is going into their pockets, and the McCs are just not getting enough charity money to pay them. For them we are less then mosquitos.
And if they want to fight me because I say their clients are liars and are involved in their daughters disappearance, and there is no abduction, so be it.
As a free citizen I have a right to free thinking and speach.
Just a shame that you have no actual evidence for any of these disgusting claims you make isn't it?
When people like you descend to the lows of simply posting such claims without even attempting to back them up with any evidence at all it is clear for all readers to see that you have failed and are nothing but an abusive person.
You can think what you like. But everyone can see your failure to back up your thoughts with evidence. It shows you in an extremely bad light. Congratulations on showing what at least one Portuguese person (you) is like and what your views on justice are like and the best thing is that you managed to do it without any help from anyone else.
-
Many people here would have a lot to respond to if legality was to be imposed, starting by some moderators that are biased and offer unfounded opinions.
But we know that the UK is a paradise for predators of the soul when the victims are foreigners.
Nevertheless, if I were you I would just ignore those carter-ruckers and the likes, they only intervene when someone is going into their pockets, and the McCs are just not getting enough charity money to pay them. For them we are less then mosquitos.
And if they want to fight me because I say their clients are liars and are involved in their daughters disappearance, and there is no abduction, so be it.
As a free citizen I have a right to free thinking and speach.
Just a shame that you have no actual evidence for any of these disgusting claims you make isn't it?
When people like you descend to the lows of simply posting such claims without even attempting to back them up with any evidence at all it is clear for all readers to see that you have failed and are nothing but an abusive person.
You can think what you like. But everyone can see your failure to back up your thoughts with evidence. It shows you in an extremely bad light. Congratulations on showing what at least one Portuguese person (you) is like and what your views on justice are like and the best thing is that you managed to do it without any help from anyone else.
That's for the Courts to evaluate.
Do you have evidence for the slander you have been spraying here...................... about the investigation?
Now report me to the moderators, but don't forget that I called you a ................. cat.
-
It is your opinion that the McCanns lied. It is not mine as there is no proof of that. You have no idea what they believed at the time and calling their comments lies is abusive unless you make it clear that is simply your opinion.
Do you doubt instead all those who said they received phone calls describing forced shutters and window, doors all locked, etc. ? The probability various people, some not communicating to one another, invented the same story is very dubious.
Anyhow, we know the shutters and window weren't forced, so why did Clarence Mitchell wait months (25 Octobre 2007) before admitting this on RTÉ (Prime Time) ?
Do you ever read what is posted on the forum before asking these inane questions which make you look foolish?
I have answered this in full previously but for your benefit as you clearly have not bothered to read that...
I do not doubt those people. If Gerry believed that, if Kate believed that at the time (in those initial few minutes of panic) then that is what I would expect them to be telling their friends. As each friend heard similar stories from Kate or Gerry directly then it is no surprise at all that they would be repeating similar stories. Your idiotic idea that they would need to communicate between one another is just that, idiotic. The people who reported the shutters etc to the press were all contacted directly by the parents.
Perhaps Mitchell hadn't been asked bluntly the question before that? Had you not thought of that? Why would he deny it if not asked? If it is what Gerry and Kate believed at the time then it needed no denying till a specific question was asked.
Now can you explain why you posted what you did about your past posting on Twitter and other sites? Or are you claiming that @aacg is not you?
-
@Luz
Unlike you who never posts evidence, I do and I post the sources too.
If you had the decency to read other people's posts instead of simply doing what you accuse others of then you might actually see the evidence posted.
But there is a saying "There's none so blind as them who will not see."
As for your personal abuse to me, why am I not surprised? Such unjustified nastiness has always been the trait of the anti-McCann poster.
-
That is a factual statement. When you post facts you cannot be accused of defamation.
Do you really believe he solved the case? No? Then it is factual to state that he did not solve the case. No defamation there then.
Do you deny that he wrote a book which was going to earn money? No? Then it is factual to state that he tried to earn money by writing that book. No defamation there then.
Your attempt to claim that what I posted in your quote is defamation is so crass and ridiculous that it makes Tom and Gerry cartoons look positively real. If that is the best example you can find you really are showing desperation.
?>)()<
This is too short to be considered factual statement, Gilet, you know it very well.
I'm not pretending GA solved the case, of course. Would he have if he hadn't been put aside ? No one can answer for sure. The defamation here is to only state "he didn't solve" without adding at least we'll never know whether he would have, had he been maintained on this case.
Assuming GA "tried to earn money by writing a book" is defamatory because that's not what he said, but a negative opinion. He had been humiliated and his honour was at stake. You might find it strange, but here in Portugal where marialvism is still vivid, it's understandable. I'm not denying his book made money, but I think it was a side effect.
Finally, Gilet, you argue ad hominem... I can see you lost your serenity. Sad.
-
Why on earth should the McCanns publicly apologise for believing in the first instance that the apartment shutters had been forced? Who has been damaged by this supposed lie? It really is nonsense to expect the McCanns to issue public retractions over things like this.
Assuming they "believed" is your belief, because they never said they had believed this and didn't pretend to the GNR nor to the PJ they had found forced shutters and window, whereas, meanwhile they were telling this to their UK circle. You could argue that the lie was "internal" and that they're not responsible if their family and friends spread it to the media. I would agree with that, had they corrected.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this was anything other than a misunderstanding? Why would they lie about the shutters knowing full well that the police would be along shortly and verify the shutters had not been jemmied? Which makes more sense - a genuine misunderstanding in the heat of the moment or a lie that would be found out almost instantly?
Martha, they lied ONLY to their family and friends about the "forced" shutters and window. Family and friends spread that rumour ignoring it was one. Up to there, ok. But they should have corrected for the sake of a police that was overcriticized to have searched for a wandering off little girl.
If the McCanns had suggested the polie (I don't know whether they did) entry was forced, the police would have dismissed it immediately, because those shutters, when forced, either break or stop rolling uniformly !
-
The defamation here is to only state "he didn't solve" without adding at least we'll never know whether he would have, had he been maintained on this case.
I think we can make an informed judgement based on what he said in his book ...
Martha, they lied ONLY to their family and friends about the "forced" shutters and window.
We have (of all people) Pat Brown and policeman Pete-type to thank for revealing to the world that Gerry's statement that the shutters could be opened from the outside was true.
Why is the assumption from there that they had been "forced" unreasonable, even if wrong ...
-
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?
Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you? And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?
So is it a pure coincidence?
Or did you lie about this?
Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?
We deserve the truth.
@AnneGuedes As you mention lies on page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post? As it says, we deserve the truth.
-
Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?
I am only reading this now Faithlilly and to answer your question I can categorically state that this forum has no contacts, formal, casual or otherwise with clan McCann. The forum finds its own path with the help of all the members as you will see in the fullness of time when the next poll is posted.
Tell me, are admin here experts on defamation law or are they just going to report things willy nilly on the off chance it may be libellous ?
The expertise within the forum is quite exceptional on most subjects including the Law. Reports of abuse and unacceptable language go to the admins. The admins decide what further action if any to take.
-
Please tick the words I can't use:
castrated
liar
disgraced
miserable
neutered
sardine muncher
shameful
...I'll get back if I remember more, sorry my vernacular vocabulary is limited 8(8-))
-
That is a factual statement. When you post facts you cannot be accused of defamation.
Do you really believe he solved the case? No? Then it is factual to state that he did not solve the case. No defamation there then.
Do you deny that he wrote a book which was going to earn money? No? Then it is factual to state that he tried to earn money by writing that book. No defamation there then.
Your attempt to claim that what I posted in your quote is defamation is so crass and ridiculous that it makes Tom and Gerry cartoons look positively real. If that is the best example you can find you really are showing desperation.
?>)()<
This is too short to be considered factual statement, Gilet, you know it very well.
I'm not pretending GA solved the case, of course. Would he have if he hadn't been put aside ? No one can answer for sure. The defamation here is to only state "he didn't solve" without adding at least we'll never know whether he would have, had he been maintained on this case.
Assuming GA "tried to earn money by writing a book" is defamatory because that's not what he said, but a negative opinion. He had been humiliated and his honour was at stake. You might find it strange, but here in Portugal where marialvism is still vivid, it's understandable. I'm not denying his book made money, but I think it was a side effect.
Finally, Gilet, you argue ad hominem... I can see you lost your serenity. Sad.
You really are being very silly. There is only fact in that statement from me. There is no defamation there whatsoever and your attempt to show otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.
It is a fact that he did not solve the case. NO defamation.
And as you have brought into the debate his removal from the case that he hadn't solved its interesting isn't it that it was his own disgraceful behaviour that led to his dismissal. He tells us all about it in his book. Do you remember when he shot his mouth off to the journalist and immediately realised (so he wrote) that he had done wrong and would be in trouble for it? So no we won't know if he could ever have solved it because his own actions prevented him from being allowed to continue. But the fact remains he didn't solve it. What I posted was not defamatory at all as you ludicrously claim.
He made money from the book. Fact. No defamation.
Everyone can see that I have not defamed Amaral who incidentally is a convicted criminal and a disgrace to the police force for his actions in another missing child case (but of course you have completely ignored that proven aspect of the man's character haven't you?
What I have posted are simple facts.
Your claim that they are defamation is simply untrue and you know it as well as the readers of this thread know it. Such abject desperation to find fault in my posts is very revealing.
-
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?
Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you? And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?
So is it a pure coincidence?
Or did you lie about this?
Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?
We deserve the truth.
@AnneGuedes As you mention lies on page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post? As it says, we deserve the truth.
I suppose are you saying will the real Anne Guedes stand up
Mike Spudgun @spudgun01 21 Feb
The #McCanns must be the first 'former suspects' in History to successfully SILENCE anyone who believes them to be complicit in any crime.
anne guedes
@aacg
@spudgun01 Their success is due to the many personalities who supported blindly their absurd theory.
Joana Morais @ xklamation 22 Feb
Petition to pressure PT Authorities reopen the Maddie case to http://www. change.org / petitions / a-vo ice-for-madeleine ... # J4M
anne guedes @ AACG 22 Feb
@ xklamation They never will, Joana, Unless they'd find a corpse, not 'cause nothing Remained (imo). And remember Pontius Pilate!
anne guedes @ AACG 20 Feb
@ ProfilerPatB May be Between ground and sky as well, if I may say.
-
....sorry my vernacular vocabulary is limited 8(8-))
Would that vocabulary include
fire
paint
or are they no longer part of your methodology?
-
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
Anne, this forum has been going for several years in different formats. The McCann case up until last week was a very minor part of the debate. It might be flavour of the month right now but this will undoubtedly change over time.
The forum will always endeavour to allow opposing views to be debated as long as they do so in a proper and reasonable manner and abide by the house rules.
The forum supports both victims and the wrongly accused/convicted where they occur and will leave no stone unturned in exposing falsehoods and myths.
-
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?
Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you? And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?
So is it a pure coincidence?
Or did you lie about this?
Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?
We deserve the truth.
@AnneGuedes As you mention lies on page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post? As it says, we deserve the truth.
I suppose are you saying will the real Anne Guedes stand up
Mike Spudgun @spudgun01 21 Feb
The #McCanns must be the first 'former suspects' in History to successfully SILENCE anyone who believes them to be complicit in any crime.
anne guedes
@aacg
@spudgun01 Their success is due to the many personalities who supported blindly their absurd theory.
Joana Morais @ xklamation 22 Feb
Petition to pressure PT Authorities reopen the Maddie case to http://www. change.org / petitions / a-vo ice-for-madeleine ... # J4M
anne guedes @ AACG 22 Feb
@ xklamation They never will, Joana, Unless they'd find a corpse, not 'cause nothing Remained (imo). And remember Pontius Pilate!
anne guedes @ AACG 20 Feb
@ ProfilerPatB May be Between ground and sky as well, if I may say.
oh dear ... this post smacks of stalking !
Surely that is against forum rules ?
( I find it quite scarey )
-
Please tick the words I can't use:
castrated
liar
disgraced
miserable
neutered
sardine muncher
shameful
...I'll get back if I remember more, sorry my vernacular vocabulary is limited 8(8-))
You can use them by all means Luz.
-
From the scene in PDL on the evening of 3rd May 2007, this conversation was overheard:
''Mr McKenzie states that:
On e hour into the search by holiday makers of the hotel and surrounding areas, about 23.00 hrs, Mr McKenzie approached the McCann's apartment from the bushes at the rear of the apartment.
He was searching the gardens. He did not know it was the McCann's apartment.
He saw Mr Gerry McCann standing alone in the doorway at the rear of the apartment talking on his mobile telephone.
Mr McCann was looking our over the swimming pool and did not see Mr McKenzie.
Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call that he feared 'she (Madeleine McCann) had been taken by paedophiles'.
He does not know who the person receiving the calls was but presumes it to be a family member.
Mr McKenzie recognises Mr McCann from being in the same holiday complex at the same time.''
Crimstoppers LP POLICE Statement taken 16th September 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
So it's pretty obvious that probably even before the police arrived the word paedophiles was being used. Surely there was some glimmer of hope that Madeleine might have woke and wondered off or at least would be safely returned.
-
Please tick the words I can't use:
castrated
liar
disgraced
miserable
neutered
sardine muncher
shameful
...I'll get back if I remember more, sorry my vernacular vocabulary is limited 8(8-))
You can use them by all means Luz.
Thanks, much obliged.
I've added another one: intellectual midget
-
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?
Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you? And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?
So is it a pure coincidence?
Or did you lie about this?
Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?
We deserve the truth.
@AnneGuedes As you mention lies on page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post? As it says, we deserve the truth.
I suppose are you saying will the real Anne Guedes stand up
Mike Spudgun @spudgun01 21 Feb
The #McCanns must be the first 'former suspects' in History to successfully SILENCE anyone who believes them to be complicit in any crime.
anne guedes
@aacg
@spudgun01 Their success is due to the many personalities who supported blindly their absurd theory.
Joana Morais @ xklamation 22 Feb
Petition to pressure PT Authorities reopen the Maddie case to http://www. change.org / petitions / a-vo ice-for-madeleine ... # J4M
anne guedes @ AACG 22 Feb
@ xklamation They never will, Joana, Unless they'd find a corpse, not 'cause nothing Remained (imo). And remember Pontius Pilate!
anne guedes @ AACG 20 Feb
@ ProfilerPatB May be Between ground and sky as well, if I may say.
oh dear ... this post smacks of stalking !
Surely that is against forum rules ?
( I find it quite scarey )
Stalking ? Is this just not reproducing postings on social media that are in the public domain ? I thnk the question was are these attributed to Anne who posts on here or are they those of another Anne ?
But you searched the internet to track someone's post history ... you took time out of your life to do that !
... I find that a bit scarey ... and certainly 'stalkerish'
-
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?
Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you? And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?
So is it a pure coincidence?
Or did you lie about this?
Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?
We deserve the truth.
@AnneGuedes As you mention lies on page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post? As it says, we deserve the truth.
I suppose are you saying will the real Anne Guedes stand up
Mike Spudgun @spudgun01 21 Feb
The #McCanns must be the first 'former suspects' in History to successfully SILENCE anyone who believes them to be complicit in any crime.
anne guedes
@aacg
@spudgun01 Their success is due to the many personalities who supported blindly their absurd theory.
Joana Morais @ xklamation 22 Feb
Petition to pressure PT Authorities reopen the Maddie case to http://www. change.org / petitions / a-vo ice-for-madeleine ... # J4M
anne guedes @ AACG 22 Feb
@ xklamation They never will, Joana, Unless they'd find a corpse, not 'cause nothing Remained (imo). And remember Pontius Pilate!
anne guedes @ AACG 20 Feb
@ ProfilerPatB May be Between ground and sky as well, if I may say.
oh dear ... this post smacks of stalking !
Surely that is against forum rules ?
( I find it quite scarey )
It is not stalking at all. The poster Anne Guedes made certain claims about her activity on Facebook, Twitter and on other sites.
Those posts demonstrate that Anne Guedes has been economical with the truth.
Are you claiming that when posters lie those lies cannot be challenged?
-
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?
Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you? And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?
So is it a pure coincidence?
Or did you lie about this?
Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?
We deserve the truth.
@AnneGuedes As you mention lies on page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post? As it says, we deserve the truth.
Is this not you Anne?
Anne Guedes wrote:
"those terrible hours of darkness before they could resume the search"
The police, tourists, inhabitants, Ocean Club staff searched up to 4:30, yes, but the parents didn't.
As well as they don't search now, even after their PI found that Madeleine is in some lair in a 10 miles radius of PDL.
Many would be happy to collaborate in the search but isn't it obvious that the parents should be searching too ?
January 27, 2010 4:52 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk
Also seems others know her, only too well.
http://.....2.forumotion.co.uk/t2843p255-photoshopping-videos-and-propaganda (http://.....2.forumotion.co.uk/t2843p255-photoshopping-videos-and-propaganda)
.....2 should not be used as a reference source in terms of neutrality.
It frequently has posters defaming, regularly, people such as Grimes, Amaral, Brown, etc., to name a few.
Neutrality means precisely that, and not allowing DEFAMATION should be applied to all.
-
Many people here would have a lot to respond to if legality was to be imposed, starting by some moderators that are biased and offer unfounded opinions.
But we know that the UK is a paradise for predators of the soul when the victims are foreigners.
Nevertheless, if I were you I would just ignore those carter-ruckers and the likes, they only intervene when someone is going into their pockets, and the McCs are just not getting enough charity money to pay them. For them we are less then mosquitos.
And if they want to fight me because I say their clients are liars and are involved in their daughters disappearance, and there is no abduction, so be it.
As a free citizen I have a right to free thinking and speech
I'll rather speak than speach.
My dear Luz - as a native of one of the most cosmopolitan and tolerant cities on earth (London) I have to say you really do talk a lot of rot!
Portugal is a wonderful country, with warm and hospitable people. Why do you feel the need to insult and denigrate the citizens of another wonderful country, cosmopolitan (I think every language on earth is spoken in London) and tolerant.
"But we know that the UK is a paradise for predators of the soul when the victims are foreigners." - really?
However, what we have a well developed sense of justice - and object to anyone riding roughshod over one of the fundamental principles of justice - ie "innocent until proven guilty".
So how about dropping the attitude and accepting that all nations have virtues and faults.
Thanks
-
Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !
Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?
Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you? And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?
So is it a pure coincidence?
Or did you lie about this?
Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?
We deserve the truth.
@AnneGuedes As you mention lies on page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post? As it says, we deserve the truth.
I suppose are you saying will the real Anne Guedes stand up
Mike Spudgun @spudgun01 21 Feb
The #McCanns must be the first 'former suspects' in History to successfully SILENCE anyone who believes them to be complicit in any crime.
anne guedes
@aacg
@spudgun01 Their success is due to the many personalities who supported blindly their absurd theory.
Joana Morais @ xklamation 22 Feb
Petition to pressure PT Authorities reopen the Maddie case to http://www. change.org / petitions / a-vo ice-for-madeleine ... # J4M
anne guedes @ AACG 22 Feb
@ xklamation They never will, Joana, Unless they'd find a corpse, not 'cause nothing Remained (imo). And remember Pontius Pilate!
anne guedes @ AACG 20 Feb
@ ProfilerPatB May be Between ground and sky as well, if I may say.
oh dear ... this post smacks of stalking !
Surely that is against forum rules ?
( I find it quite scarey )
Stalking ? Is this just not reproducing postings on social media that are in the public domain ? I thnk the question was are these attributed to Anne who posts on here or are they those of another Anne ?
But you searched the internet to track someone's post history ... you took time out of your life to do that !
... I find that a bit scarey ... and certainly 'stalkerish'
Not at all I happened to be looking at another forum before I came on here where these posts plus more were the subject of a thread. So you are wrong in your assumption that I searched the internet and I certainly took no more time out of my life than you do by posting on here
-
@Luz
Your utter failure to show a single fault in what I have posted is evidence enough of its truth.
Your disgusting abuse of me instead of responding like an intelligent person is clear for all to see.
Your refusal to debate is simply because there is nothing in my post which you can actually challenge. Every word I have posted is the absolute truth and you cannot deny that. Instead you post filthy abuse. Why am I not surprised?
-
Stalking ? Is this just not reproducing postings on social media that are in the public domain ? I thnk the question was are these attributed to Anne who posts on here or are they those of another Anne ?
Do I have to justify who I'm not ?
Really scary mentalities here !
-
Stalking ? Is this just not reproducing postings on social media that are in the public domain ? I thnk the question was are these attributed to Anne who posts on here or are they those of another Anne ?
Do I have to justify who I'm not ?
Really scary mentalities here !
Its simple really.
Are you telling us that it is pure coincidence that another Portuguese resident called Anne Guedes (you have already said that is your real name) is posting about the McCanns?
Or is it you and you lied about your activity?
Which is it that you are claiming?
-
...
So it's pretty obvious that probably even before the police arrived the word paedophiles was being used.
...
I can swear Meadow isn't Mr McCann in disguise.
Why are you deliberately trying to disrupt this thread with your obsession with paedophilia?
-
@AnneGuedes
Is making stupid quips about Mr. McCann your real game? Or is that just to divert from the fact that you are failing to answer questions about the things you have claimed on here?
-
Stalking ? Is this just not reproducing postings on social media that are in the public domain ? I thnk the question was are these attributed to Anne who posts on here or are they those of another Anne ?
Do I have to justify who I'm not ?
Really scary mentalities here !
I feel you are being bullied on this thread Anne, and I am appalled that others have been 'tracking you down' on the internet ( makes me feel a bit queasy )
I think you should report this personal hounding to the mods
-
Stalking ? Is this just not reproducing postings on social media that are in the public domain ? I thnk the question was are these attributed to Anne who posts on here or are they those of another Anne ?
Do I have to justify who I'm not ?
Really scary mentalities here !
Its simple really.
Are you telling us that it is pure coincidence that another Portuguese resident called Anne Guedes (you have already said that is your real name) is posting about the McCanns?
Or is it you and you lied about your activity?
Which is it that you are claiming?
Don't you see all this is pure abuse, eventually defamatory ? These names are very common.
-
Stalking ? Is this just not reproducing postings on social media that are in the public domain ? I thnk the question was are these attributed to Anne who posts on here or are they those of another Anne ?
Do I have to justify who I'm not ?
Really scary mentalities here !
I feel you are being bullied on this thread Anne, and I am appalled that others have been 'tracking you down' on the internet ( makes me feel a bit queasy )
I think you should report this personal hounding to the mods
Your concern for your fellow poster is touching. However you are forgetting it was Anne Guedes who made the claims about her Twitter etc. activity, not others.
Are you really saying that she should be allowed to lie about those claims or are you suggesting it is pure coincidence that @aacg happens to have the same name as the poster you are so touchingly being protective of?
When people make claims here they should expect to be challenged to support those claims.
I have asked the simple question did she lie or is she claiming its all a terrible coincidence? Others have noted that there is plenty of evidence of this other poster doing what Anne Guedes here claims she does not do? So did she lie or is it a coincidence?
What do you think?
-
Stalking ? Is this just not reproducing postings on social media that are in the public domain ? I thnk the question was are these attributed to Anne who posts on here or are they those of another Anne ?
Do I have to justify who I'm not ?
Really scary mentalities here !
Its simple really.
Are you telling us that it is pure coincidence that another Portuguese resident called Anne Guedes (you have already said that is your real name) is posting about the McCanns?
Or is it you and you lied about your activity?
Which is it that you are claiming?
Don't you see all this is pure abuse, eventually defamatory ? These names are very common.
So you are claiming categorically that it is not you posting as @aacg and that it is pure coincidence that two people with a similar style in English, both called Anne Guedes, both with similar views on the McCann case and both claiming to be based in Portugal are posting on the issue?
Very, very interesting indeed!
There is nothing defamatory in what I have posted by the way. I have simply asked legitimate questions about the comparison between two online posters. I thought you believed in legitimate questions or is that only when they are not directed at you personally?
-
I feel you are being bullied on this thread Anne, and I am appalled that others have been 'tracking you down' on the internet ( makes me feel a bit queasy )
I think you should report this personal hounding to the mods
Thank you, Icabodcrane. I did. I feel horrible. Those ugly words are like hounds (whoever they're addressed to). I wish I understood why people behave this way, makes me cry I don't.
-
Your concern for your fellow poster is touching. However you are forgetting it was Anne Guedes who made the claims about her Twitter etc. activity, not others.
Are you really saying that she should be allowed to lie about those claims or are you suggesting it is pure coincidence that @aacg happens to have the same name as the poster you are so touchingly being protective of?
When people make claims here they should expect to be challenged to support those claims.
I have asked the simple question did she lie or is she claiming its all a terrible coincidence? Others have noted that there is plenty of evidence of this other poster doing what Anne Guedes here claims she does not do? So did she lie or is it a coincidence?
What do you think?
You feel it is proper and acceptable for forum members to have their personal internet use 'investigated' by other members ?
You think it is proper and acceptable to hound a fellow member and stalk their on line activity ?
You are scarey gilet
-
You can use them by all means Luz.
Thanks, much obliged.
I've added another one: intellectual midget
Problem is when you use them with other words. 8(0(*
-
Please calm down everyone or I will lock this thread.
Past disputes on other forums should not be brought here.
Well said
-
Please calm down and take 5 everyone or I will lock this thread.
Past disputes on other forums should not be brought here.
-
Please calm down everyone or I will lock this thread.
Past disputes on other forums should not be brought here.
Apologies but when a poster makes a specific claim about her posting history of her own volition as Anna Guedes did here, to make her own point, then is it not fair that those who know that either there is a remarkable coincidence of names, styles etc can challenge the claim she made or should we just ignore it?
However as she has now claimed that its is pure co-incidence (I think) by referring to the fact that the name is very common I will let the matter rest. Thats not to say that I believe the claim though, because if it was really true I suspect there would have been a robust denial. None came.
-
Your concern for your fellow poster is touching. However you are forgetting it was Anne Guedes who made the claims about her Twitter etc. activity, not others.
Are you really saying that she should be allowed to lie about those claims or are you suggesting it is pure coincidence that @aacg happens to have the same name as the poster you are so touchingly being protective of?
When people make claims here they should expect to be challenged to support those claims.
I have asked the simple question did she lie or is she claiming its all a terrible coincidence? Others have noted that there is plenty of evidence of this other poster doing what Anne Guedes here claims she does not do? So did she lie or is it a coincidence?
What do you think?
You feel it is proper and acceptable for forum members to have their personal internet use 'investigated' by other members ?
You think it is proper and acceptable to hound a fellow member and stalk their on line activity ?
You are scarey gilet
It wasn't me who made the original post about this. It was Anne Guedes herself. She claimed not to follow people on Twitter.
I stalked no-one. I have a good memory and know of the Anti-McCann poster @aacg called Anne Guedes.
It was a perfectly fair question to ask was she lying about her other posting or was it pure coincidence. Though she has now half-heartedly suggested it is coincidence it is difficult to credit. Nonetheless that is what she has implied and I must accept that.
-
gilet, I believe you said this.
"Everyone can see that I have not defamed Amaral who incidentally is a convicted criminal and a disgrace to the police force for his actions in another missing child case (but of course you have completely ignored that proven aspect of the man's character haven't you?"
Note the words ' a disgrace to the police force '.
That is an opinion of yours, and not a fact, therefore can be classified as defamation.
Since if you don't count that as defamation, you can't complain if people view the Mccanns in the same way as regards what they failed to do in PDL.
-
The French budget minister recently confessed he had a secret account in Switzerland. Some politics around were amazed and explained why : He did such a robust denial in Parliament, we believed him !
You see, appearing and being shouldn't be mixed up.
I wish you could understand the harsh tone of your posts, suddenly, reminded me of an episode of my childhood : little stones thrown at me in the school-yard because, in an history class about religions, my pals had discovered I wasn't a catholic.
-
gilet, I believe you said this.
"Everyone can see that I have not defamed Amaral who incidentally is a convicted criminal and a disgrace to the police force for his actions in another missing child case (but of course you have completely ignored that proven aspect of the man's character haven't you?"
Note the words ' a disgrace to the police force '.
That is an opinion of yours, and not a fact, therefore can be classified as defamation.
Since if you don't count that as defamation, you can't complain if people view the Mccanns in the same way as regards what they failed to do in PDL.
Utter and absolute rubbish. It is not simply my opinion of the man. Its a statement of fact. It is a disgrace that a serving policeman should firstly get a criminal conviction for covering up something his officers had done in relation to the torture of a parent in a missing child case. And it is a disgrace that a serving police officer should be breaking the rules regarding leaking information and discussing the case with a journalist.
I can post clear evidence that his behaviour was disgraceful. Some of that evidence comes from his own confession of the behaviour written in his own book.
When anti-McCanns learn that opinion based on genuine evidence is not defamation and opinion simply based on mindless rumour and speculation is defamation then debate may progress. Till then I know that my statement that Amaral is a disgrace to the police force is accurate fact and therefore not defamation.
-
thanks gilet, but I would prefer a reply from the poster herself.
-
@Icabodcrane
I am reminded of the fact that you never did explain the discrepancy in your post where you mentioned Twitter whilst claiming not to be on Twitter? Any comment?
I am not 'on' twitter ... I have not signed up and I do not tweet, but can read it
I am not 'on' facebook ... I have not signed up and therefore cannot view
I do not post on any forums other than this one and digital spy ( although I can view them )
... how about you ?
-
"
Speaking personally, I hope there are no more delays in the libel case in Portugal, and then we shall see whether the Mccanns can prove libel there."
I agree with that
-
I must say I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments because the Amaral debacle has caused so much trouble far outside the corridors of justice. It is about time we found out if Amaral is as good as he makes out to be or if he is just another cop with tunnel vision and an incapacity to realise when he is wrong.
-
I must say I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments because the Amaral debacle has caused so much trouble far outside the corridors of justice. It is about time we found out if Amaral is as good as he makes out to be or if he is just another cop with tunnel vision and an incapacity to realise when he is wrong.
This won't solve the case, but it should provide some light in the situation.
However, I dare say whoever loses the case will almost certainly appeal, so this could go on for years.
-
Just to answer the OP - I feel safe on here. What reason should I have to not be?
-
Till then I know that my statement that Amaral is a disgrace to the police force is accurate fact and therefore not defamation.
For the sake of clarity the phrase "a disgrace to the police force " has been used in respect of Gonçalo Amaral by many Press organisations following his conviction whilst a serving officer in the Portuguese police. It does not constitute a defamation to use this term. Should his conviction be overturned however that is a different matter.
-
Utter and absolute rubbish. It is not simply my opinion of the man. Its a statement of fact. It is a disgrace that a serving policeman should firstly get a criminal conviction for covering up something his officers had done in relation to the torture of a parent in a missing child case.
*******
Gilet, there is no proof that Mr Amaral covered up torture by his officers. He was found guilty of signing off a report where his officers said that that convicted child murderer had fallen down the stairs. He was not there at the time so took their word for it. The Portuguese courts have ruled that that woman was beaten but no officer was found guilty of doing so. That woman was under the duty of care of the prison service. IMHO the stairs story was to cover up and release from culpability. Occams Razor suggests she was beaten by inmates. She has recently been found guilty of perjury against the PJ and sentenced to another few months inside.
-
From the scene in PDL on the evening of 3rd May 2007, this conversation was overheard:
''Mr McKenzie states that:
On e hour into the search by holiday makers of the hotel and surrounding areas, about 23.00 hrs, Mr McKenzie approached the McCann's apartment from the bushes at the rear of the apartment.
He was searching the gardens. He did not know it was the McCann's apartment.
He saw Mr Gerry McCann standing alone in the doorway at the rear of the apartment talking on his mobile telephone.
Mr McCann was looking our over the swimming pool and did not see Mr McKenzie.
Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call that he feared 'she (Madeleine McCann) had been taken by paedophiles'.
He does not know who the person receiving the calls was but presumes it to be a family member.
Mr McKenzie recognises Mr McCann from being in the same holiday complex at the same time.''
Crimstoppers LP POLICE Statement taken 16th September 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
So it's pretty obvious that probably even before the police arrived the word paedophiles was being used. Surely there was some glimmer of hope that Madeleine might have woke and wondered off or at least would be safely returned.
Interestingly enough, Gerry was NOT on his mobile phone. Not his English one anyway. His call records (the mobile phone company log, not the ones he keeps deleting from his phone) show that there was no call anywhere near the time that Graham McKenzie saw/heard him talking on his phone. He subsequently DID use his phone shortly afterwards to contact Kate so it's not like his phone wasn't working/battery was flat.
More than one mobile. I can think of a good reason why someone would have, say, a disposable PAYG phone, can you children? ;-)
Yes, of course. Just in case he lost his other one. Why, whatever can you have been thinking I meant?
-
I have seen many stupid posts in my time
-
Utter and absolute rubbish. It is not simply my opinion of the man. Its a statement of fact. It is a disgrace that a serving policeman should firstly get a criminal conviction for covering up something his officers had done in relation to the torture of a parent in a missing child case.
*******
Gilet, there is no proof that Mr Amaral covered up torture by his officers. He was found guilty of signing off a report where his officers said that that convicted child murderer had fallen down the stairs. He was not there at the time so took their word for it. The Portuguese courts have ruled that that woman was beaten but no officer was found guilty of doing so. That woman was under the duty of care of the prison service. IMHO the stairs story was to cover up and release from culpability. Occams Razor suggests she was beaten by inmates. She has recently been found guilty of perjury against the PJ and sentenced to another few months inside.
Having not made the claim that you state I made, I simply suggest you read more carefully before posting. Amaral remains a convicted criminal for an offence committed in relation to that torture. No defamation whatsoever from me.
-
Till then I know that my statement that Amaral is a disgrace to the police force is accurate fact and therefore not defamation.
For the sake of clarity the phrase "a disgrace to the police force " has been used in respect of Gonçalo Amaral by many Press organisations following his conviction whilst a serving officer in the Portuguese police. It does not constitute a defamation to use this term. Should his conviction be overturned however that is a different matter.
There have been many phrases and expressions used in the press, and the press regularly defame people, not just in the UK.
If you accept the treatise, that an 'opinion' if it appears in the press, isn't deformation ,then you are on a slippery slope.
As to the often given 'opinion' by some Mccann supporters that Amaral authorized the beating of Cipriano, that is pure rubbish.
-
wow - how to reply to that! eh?
-
I must say I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments because the Amaral debacle has caused so much trouble far outside the corridors of justice. It is about time we found out if Amaral is as good as he makes out to be or if he is just another cop with tunnel vision and an incapacity to realise when he is wrong.
Now that is probably the most sensible thing I've seen you post since I've been on here and is far more in keeping with a moderator of a forum as it shows an open mind towards an outcome as opposed to the standard Amaral-abuser mentality we see from others as it's part of their standard operating handbook they get given when they check their brains in, I think? ;-)
-
gilet, I believe you said this.
"Everyone can see that I have not defamed Amaral who incidentally is a convicted criminal and a disgrace to the police force for his actions in another missing child case (but of course you have completely ignored that proven aspect of the man's character haven't you?"
Note the words ' a disgrace to the police force '.
That is an opinion of yours, and not a fact, therefore can be classified as defamation.
Since if you don't count that as defamation, you can't complain if people view the Mccanns in the same way as regards what they failed to do in PDL.
Stephen, to defame or libel someone you have to put them at some disadvantage or loss.
In other words, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative or inferior image.
The fact that Amaral received a criminal conviction whilst a serving police officer was the means whereby he created that inferior image all on his own, thus rendering the phrase, "a disgrace to the police force" a valid comment.
-
...
As to the often given 'opinion' by some Mccann supporters that Amaral authorized the beating of Cipriano, that is pure rubbish.
You claim that is an "often given'opinion'. I bet you cannot substantiate your claim can you?
-
"The fact that Amaral received a criminal conviction whilst a serving police officer was the means whereby he created that inferior image all on his own, thus rendering the phrase, "a disgrace to the police force" a valid comment."
correction - I don't believe he received a conviction whilst a serving police officer
-
...
As to the often given 'opinion' by some Mccann supporters that Amaral authorized the beating of Cipriano, that is pure rubbish.
You claim that is an "often given'opinion'. I bet you cannot substantiate your claim can you?
Try ...... 8)-)))
That floor is yours to explore, literally and metaphorically.
-
Martha, you desperately wish to have a child, you try for years in vain, you're an only child and your parents are expecting you to give them a baby to love, you finally manage to have a IVF, it first doesn't result, then it does and you can't believe your eyes, this is the most beautiful day of your life, the best present ever got. Then 4 and half years later, you stupidly leave that child alone without locking the door, because your husband says "it will be fine", letting arrive the worst day of your life : your child isn't there any more, you have to tell your parents, are you going to tell them that you left the door open and some one passed by and took your child ? No, you feel so guilty, so ashamed, this is more than you can bear, you pretend shutters and window were forced.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau describes very well this feeling (a similar episode happened to him) in "Les confessions".
-
I am by no means an expert on this case but would like to address the subject matter of this thread. Anyone who 'doubts the McCanns' can certainly express their views in safety here as far as I am concerned. Subject to usual forum standars of decency of course.
Personally, I have doubted the McCanns from the beginning. I cannot substantiate these concerns other than I feel there is something not right about the parents; especially Kate. And I think Gerry knows what happened. I freely admit I could be being grossly unfair to greiving parents but nevertheless it's how I feel.
I remember feeling disgusted that these two highly paid professionals used the Maddie Fund to pay the mortgage on their very nice house! This was certainly published in the press; does anyone know if this was proven to be true or not?
-
"The fact that Amaral received a criminal conviction whilst a serving police officer was the means whereby he created that inferior image all on his own, thus rendering the phrase, "a disgrace to the police force" a valid comment."
corrextion - I don't believe he received a conviction whilst a sewrving police officer
Better to say that "he received a conviction for an offence which he committed whilst a serving police officer".
-
When you make claims here, the forum rules say you should provide links. That does not mean a link to a whole forum but to specific evidence of the claim you are making.
Now can you do that or are you just like Luz who has failed every time she has been asked to do so?
-
As to the often given 'opinion' by some McCann supporters that Amaral authorized the beating of Cipriano, that is pure rubbish.
We don't know that Stephen. What concerns me though is that those detectives were under the direct authority of Amaral and in the circumstances they felt that they could do it and what's more get away with it. What does that tell you?
-
I am by no means an expert on this case but would like to address the subject matter of this thread. Anyone who 'doubts the McCanns' can certainly express their views in safety here as far as I am concerned. Subject to usual forum standars of decency of course.
Personally, I have doubted the McCanns from the beginning. I cannot substantiate these concerns other than I feel there is something not right about the parents; especially Kate. And I think Gerry knows what happened. I freely admit I could be being grossly unfair to greiving parents but nevertheless it's how I feel.
I remember feeling disgusted that these two highly paid professionals used the Maddie Fund to pay the mortgage on their very nice house! This was certainly published in the press; does anyone know if this was proven to be true or not?
I don't know if the mortgage payments claim was ever confirmed, sorry
I'm sure there will be someone here who will though
-
Gilet, perhaps you need to reread what you wrote and my response,before respondong to me at 9.59. Cheers.
-
"The fact that Amaral received a criminal conviction whilst a serving police officer was the means whereby he created that inferior image all on his own, thus rendering the phrase, "a disgrace to the police force" a valid comment."
correction - I don't believe he received a conviction whilst a serving police officer
He may not have received a conviction whilst a serving police officer, but he was made an arguido, on the 4th May 2007.
He was also being taken to court by his brother, for fraud. This was proved. His wife reported him, in December 2007, for threats made to her, not giving her daughter back to her, and leaving the child alone, while he was drinking with friends in a bar.
Its all documented, with police reports.
-
"The fact that Amaral received a criminal conviction whilst a serving police officer was the means whereby he created that inferior image all on his own, thus rendering the phrase, "a disgrace to the police force" a valid comment."
correction - I don't believe he received a conviction whilst a serving police officer
He may not have received a conviction whilst a serving police officer, but he was made an arguido, on the 4th May 2007.
He was also being taken to court by his brother, for fraud. This was proved. His wife reported him, in December 2007, for threats made to her, not giving her daughter back to her, and leaving the child alone, while he was drinking with friends in a bar.
Its all documented, with police reports.
I think the allegations also included that he drove police cars while drunk and with his daughter inside?
-
Martha, you desperately wish to have a child, you try for years in vain, you're an only child and your parents are expecting you to give them a baby to love, you finally manage to have a IVF, it first doesn't result, then it does and you can't believe your eyes, this is the most beautiful day of your life, the best present ever got. Then 4 and half years later, you stupidly leave that child alone without locking the door, because your husband says "it will be fine", letting arrive the worst day of your life : your child isn't there any more, you have to tell your parents, are you going to tell them that you left the door open and some one passed by and took your child ? No, you feel so guilty, so ashamed, this is more than you can bear, you pretend shutters and window were forced.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau describes very well this feeling (a similar episode happened to him) in "Les confessions".
A good post Anne. Could it have been so hard to lock the patio doors?
-
I have read there occasionally but have never seen that specific claim. Please point to a few examples or are you simply making it up? When you make claims here, the forum rules say you should provide links. That does not mean a link to a whole forum but to specific evidence of the claim you are making.
Now can you do that or are you just like Luz who has failed every time she has been asked to do so?
I read it there some time ago and I am not prepared to trawl through the sewer that ..... is.
It is a den of hate and anyone who agrees with views there, is just as bad as them.
Meanwhile your hatred of Amaral is clear to see from your writing and your stance is not neutral, it merely follows the Mccann line.
-
I don't know if the mortgage payments claim was ever confirmed, sorry
I'm sure there will be someone here who will though
The mortgage payments in the region of 5-6 thousand pounds were confirmed to have been made from the Fund by their personal spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, both on Tv and on a radio show. The terms of the fund were set up to include it helping the Mccann family financially so in that sense they did nothing wrong.
-
I am by no means an expert on this case but would like to address the subject matter of this thread. Anyone who 'doubts the McCanns' can certainly express their views in safety here as far as I am concerned. Subject to usual forum standars of decency of course.
Personally, I have doubted the McCanns from the beginning. I cannot substantiate these concerns other than I feel there is something not right about the parents; especially Kate. And I think Gerry knows what happened. I freely admit I could be being grossly unfair to greiving parents but nevertheless it's how I feel.
I remember feeling disgusted that these two highly paid professionals used the Maddie Fund to pay the mortgage on their very nice house! This was certainly published in the press; does anyone know if this was proven to be true or not?
I don't know if the mortgage payments claim was ever confirmed, sorry
I'm sure there will be someone here who will though
I don't know either but it has never been denied or explained by Clarence M. I always wondered how this had come out. Personally I'm not chocked, they were not earning or not earning as much as when working, mortgages don't wait, etc.
-
I read it there some time ago and I am not prepared to trawl through the sewer that ..... is.
It is a den of hate and anyone who agrees with views there, is just as bad as them.
Meanwhile your hatred of Amaral is clear to see from your writing and your stance is not neutral, it merely follows the Mccann line.
So like Luz, you have failed completely to post any evidence for your claim. I am sure readers here will take note of those failures. They are not conducive to good debate.
Your so-called knowledge of my opinion of Amaral is interesting. The fact is that I have only stated categorical facts about Goncalo Amaral. I have expressed no opinion about the man. It is a statement of fact that his behaviour was disgraceful. In this country he would never have been in charge of the McCann case because his being a suspect in such a serious breach of procedure in another missing child case that it eventually led to his conviction would have probably have seen him suspended and would at the very least have seen him removed to less controversial roles.
I follow the line of wishing to find the truth. And your posting of speculation without evidence as fact is never going to help anyone get to that goal.
-
I don't know either but it has never been denied or explained by Clarence M. I always wondered how this had come out. Personally I'm not chocked, they were not earning or not earning as much as when working, mortgages don't wait, etc.
It is a moral dilemma and a fine line to tread. >@@(*&)
What were the options?
-
I read it there some time ago and I am not prepared to trawl through the sewer that ..... is.
It is a den of hate and anyone who agrees with views there, is just as bad as them.
Meanwhile your hatred of Amaral is clear to see from your writing and your stance is not neutral, it merely follows the Mccann line.
So like Luz, you have failed completely to post any evidence for your claim. I am sure readers here will take note of those failures. They are not conducive to good debate.
Your so-called knowledge of my opinion of Amaral is interesting. The fact is that I have only stated categorical facts about Goncalo Amaral. I have expressed no opinion about the man. It is a statement of fact that his behaviour was disgraceful. In this country he would never have been in charge of the McCann case because his being a suspect in such a serious breach of procedure in another missing child case that it eventually led to his conviction would have probably have seen him suspended and would at the very least have seen him removed to less controversial roles.
I follow the line of wishing to find the truth. And your posting of speculation without evidence as fact is never going to help anyone get to that goal.
The 'beating up' of Cipriano has not been proved to be carried out by the police.
There is no proof Amaral took part in her alleged 'beating up'.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Meanwhile, from a poster on Amazon, would you care to answer the following points.
' Might be worth reminding gilet to read the forensics reports, too. I honestly do not know how s/he has become so confused, they are all over the place.
He claims that
'' It was the PJ who failed to collect samples from the bed. It was Amaral who was coordinating the PJ at that time. When a police force fails so badly to collect such potential vital evidence in a missing child case then I think it is fair to point out their failure and to call it disgraceful work.''
For starters, Madeleine's bed WAS examined, this is from the report of the Crime scene team from the police laboratory
''After the recovery of hairs described above there proceeded the search for possible traces of semen, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, there being identified various [several] areas where fluorescence characteristic of this type of trace evidence was seen.
The areas where the fluorescence was seen were submitted to a "Phosphatise test" search there being a slightly positive reaction (purplish colour) only in area of the bed-cover of the single bed opposite to the bed from where the minor disappeared, a piece of that bed-cover being collected and placed inside a paper envelope in accordance with instructions issued by the Biology Section of the LPC, it being referenced as trace evidence #5;
A search was also made for possible biological traces and fibres on the single bed from where the minor disappeared, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, the result obtained having been negative.''
He then goes on to say this:
'' It was also the PJ who in one of the most strange twists of the case accepted the pillow case brought by Gerry McCann back from Rothley as evidence. Having failed to find any DNA (Were their techniques simply not up to the task? Were they as bad as the fingerprinting techniques which Amaral himself says were not the best?) they should then have liaised with Leicester Police for a reference DNA sample from the house and should never have simply accepted a sample via the father of the missing child. Such incredible stupidity on the part of the PJ was the responsibility of Goncalo Amaral who was co-ordinating the PJ team who allowed it.''
This is all nonsense, and would put the mythmakers to shame
The pillowcase was examined and a surrogate reference sample recovered by the FSS, in England, not brought back to Portugal. It had nothing to do with Amaral and none of gilet's subsequent claims make any sense whatsoever.
Again, this is all covered in some detail in the PJ files, so there really is no excuse. '
I await your reply.
-
The areas where the fluorescence was seen were submitted to a "Phosphatise test" search there being a slightly positive reaction (purplish colour) only in area of the bed-cover of the single bed opposite to the bed from where the minor disappeared, a piece of that bed-cover being collected and placed inside a paper envelope in accordance with instructions issued by the Biology Section of the LPC, it being referenced as trace evidence #5;
That was not Madeleine's bed.
I conclude further that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with Charlie Gordon (bar code 51156964). I believe that Charlie Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, and if this is the case, in my opinion, the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket.
-
I read it there some time ago and I am not prepared to trawl through the sewer that ..... is.
It is a den of hate and anyone who agrees with views there, is just as bad as them.
Meanwhile your hatred of Amaral is clear to see from your writing and your stance is not neutral, it merely follows the Mccann line.
So like Luz, you have failed completely to post any evidence for your claim. I am sure readers here will take note of those failures. They are not conducive to good debate.
Your so-called knowledge of my opinion of Amaral is interesting. The fact is that I have only stated categorical facts about Goncalo Amaral. I have expressed no opinion about the man. It is a statement of fact that his behaviour was disgraceful. In this country he would never have been in charge of the McCann case because his being a suspect in such a serious breach of procedure in another missing child case that it eventually led to his conviction would have probably have seen him suspended and would at the very least have seen him removed to less controversial roles.
I follow the line of wishing to find the truth. And your posting of speculation without evidence as fact is never going to help anyone get to that goal.
The 'beating up' of Cipriano has not been proved to be carried out by the police.
There is no proof Amaral took part in her alleged 'beating up'.
No idea why you have posted those two sentences. I have never claimed either to be true. Those sentences have no relevance to this conversation.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Meanwhile, from a poster on Amazon, would you care to answer the following points.
' Might be worth reminding gilet to read the forensics reports, too. I honestly do not know how s/he has become so confused, they are all over the place.
He claims that
'' It was the PJ who failed to collect samples from the bed. It was Amaral who was coordinating the PJ at that time. When a police force fails so badly to collect such potential vital evidence in a missing child case then I think it is fair to point out their failure and to call it disgraceful work.''
For starters, Madeleine's bed WAS examined, this is from the report of the Crime scene team from the police laboratory
''After the recovery of hairs described above there proceeded the search for possible traces of semen, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, there being identified various [several] areas where fluorescence characteristic of this type of trace evidence was seen.
The areas where the fluorescence was seen were submitted to a "Phosphatise test" search there being a slightly positive reaction (purplish colour) only in area of the bed-cover of the single bed opposite to the bed from where the minor disappeared, a piece of that bed-cover being collected and placed inside a paper envelope in accordance with instructions issued by the Biology Section of the LPC, it being referenced as trace evidence #5;
A search was also made for possible biological traces and fibres on the single bed from where the minor disappeared, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, the result obtained having been negative.''
He then goes on to say this:
'' It was also the PJ who in one of the most strange twists of the case accepted the pillow case brought by Gerry McCann back from Rothley as evidence. Having failed to find any DNA (Were their techniques simply not up to the task? Were they as bad as the fingerprinting techniques which Amaral himself says were not the best?) they should then have liaised with Leicester Police for a reference DNA sample from the house and should never have simply accepted a sample via the father of the missing child. Such incredible stupidity on the part of the PJ was the responsibility of Goncalo Amaral who was co-ordinating the PJ team who allowed it.''
This is all nonsense, and would put the mythmakers to shame
The pillowcase was examined and a surrogate reference sample recovered by the FSS, in England, not brought back to Portugal. It had nothing to do with Amaral and none of gilet's subsequent claims make any sense whatsoever.
Again, this is all covered in some detail in the PJ files, so there really is no excuse. '
I await your reply.
Though the moderators have asked that posts from other forums are not brought here I will point out that I have answered this fully on the relevant thread. Bringing it to this thread is either laziness or an attempt to disrupt this topic. I suggest you look at the relevant thread.
-
I don't know either but it has never been denied or explained by Clarence M. I always wondered how this had come out. Personally I'm not chocked, they were not earning or not earning as much as when working, mortgages don't wait, etc.
It is a moral dilemma and a fine line to tread. >@@(*&)
What were the options?
The question of the Fund is interesting. Why have so many people given so much money in so short a delay ? And what for ? According to the Kennedy uncle, it would be used in lawyers. He might have expected charges because after all the kids were left alone. But this is certainly not the reason why people sent money. Had they sent money, if they had not been convinced there was a breaking in, if they had known a door was open ? I don't think so. Imo people sent money out of compassion like in an unexpected catastrophe : you're aware you can't do nothing but money is always useful somehow.
Now let's face it : money couldn't be spent on private investigators, since the PJ had the authority on the investigation. So the best use was to turn the McCanns' life as easy as it could be. That's how I understand it.
It seems some, in the Ltd's board of directors, didn't understand it that way. Clarence M. declared that the mortgage payment wouldn't be repeated.
-
Martha, you desperately wish to have a child, you try for years in vain, you're an only child and your parents are expecting you to give them a baby to love, you finally manage to have a IVF, it first doesn't result, then it does and you can't believe your eyes, this is the most beautiful day of your life, the best present ever got. Then 4 and half years later, you stupidly leave that child alone without locking the door, because your husband says "it will be fine", letting arrive the worst day of your life : your child isn't there any more, you have to tell your parents, are you going to tell them that you left the door open and some one passed by and took your child ? No, you feel so guilty, so ashamed, this is more than you can bear, you pretend shutters and window were forced.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau describes very well this feeling (a similar episode happened to him) in "Les confessions".
Is this an imaginary scenario you are depicting or do you believe this is what may actually have happened in PdL? Because if it is the latter, you seem to be suggesting that the McCanns lied to their family when they discovered that their child had vanished, not that they were involved in covering up her death, is that your view?
Martha, I think this scenario is plausible and fits the "we've let her down". I'm trying to understand, not to judge.
-
I read it there some time ago and I am not prepared to trawl through the sewer that ..... is.
It is a den of hate and anyone who agrees with views there, is just as bad as them.
Meanwhile your hatred of Amaral is clear to see from your writing and your stance is not neutral, it merely follows the Mccann line.
So like Luz, you have failed completely to post any evidence for your claim. I am sure readers here will take note of those failures. They are not conducive to good debate.
Your so-called knowledge of my opinion of Amaral is interesting. The fact is that I have only stated categorical facts about Goncalo Amaral. I have expressed no opinion about the man. It is a statement of fact that his behaviour was disgraceful. In this country he would never have been in charge of the McCann case because his being a suspect in such a serious breach of procedure in another missing child case that it eventually led to his conviction would have probably have seen him suspended and would at the very least have seen him removed to less controversial roles.
I follow the line of wishing to find the truth. And your posting of speculation without evidence as fact is never going to help anyone get to that goal.
The 'beating up' of Cipriano has not been proved to be carried out by the police.
There is no proof Amaral took part in her alleged 'beating up'.
No idea why you have posted those two sentences. I have never claimed either to be true. Those sentences have no relevance to this conversation.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Meanwhile, from a poster on Amazon, would you care to answer the following points.
' Might be worth reminding gilet to read the forensics reports, too. I honestly do not know how s/he has become so confused, they are all over the place.
He claims that
'' It was the PJ who failed to collect samples from the bed. It was Amaral who was coordinating the PJ at that time. When a police force fails so badly to collect such potential vital evidence in a missing child case then I think it is fair to point out their failure and to call it disgraceful work.''
For starters, Madeleine's bed WAS examined, this is from the report of the Crime scene team from the police laboratory
''After the recovery of hairs described above there proceeded the search for possible traces of semen, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, there being identified various [several] areas where fluorescence characteristic of this type of trace evidence was seen.
The areas where the fluorescence was seen were submitted to a "Phosphatise test" search there being a slightly positive reaction (purplish colour) only in area of the bed-cover of the single bed opposite to the bed from where the minor disappeared, a piece of that bed-cover being collected and placed inside a paper envelope in accordance with instructions issued by the Biology Section of the LPC, it being referenced as trace evidence #5;
A search was also made for possible biological traces and fibres on the single bed from where the minor disappeared, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, the result obtained having been negative.''
He then goes on to say this:
'' It was also the PJ who in one of the most strange twists of the case accepted the pillow case brought by Gerry McCann back from Rothley as evidence. Having failed to find any DNA (Were their techniques simply not up to the task? Were they as bad as the fingerprinting techniques which Amaral himself says were not the best?) they should then have liaised with Leicester Police for a reference DNA sample from the house and should never have simply accepted a sample via the father of the missing child. Such incredible stupidity on the part of the PJ was the responsibility of Goncalo Amaral who was co-ordinating the PJ team who allowed it.''
This is all nonsense, and would put the mythmakers to shame
The pillowcase was examined and a surrogate reference sample recovered by the FSS, in England, not brought back to Portugal. It had nothing to do with Amaral and none of gilet's subsequent claims make any sense whatsoever.
Again, this is all covered in some detail in the PJ files, so there really is no excuse. '
I await your reply.
Though the moderators have asked that posts from other forums are not brought here I will point out that I have answered this fully on the relevant thread. Bringing it to this thread is either laziness or an attempt to disrupt this topic. I suggest you look at the relevant thread.
Which thread is your answer to those points on ?
This wasn't an attempt at disruption, I want to see if you can really provide answers to important questions, instead of pursuing your vindictive pursuit of Amaral.
To briefly remind you, Amaral was not the only one indicating the involvement of the Mccanns in the disappearance of Madeleine, it was the PJ.
I want to see your answers to those and other relevant questions, and I can then see if they have any value or they are simply reflecting your bias and intense dislike of him.
-
regardless of what the pj may have thought or said they failed to provide any evidence of complicity by the mccanns in the death or disppearance of their daughter. or to put it another way they are innocent of any crime. 8(>((
-
regardless of what the pj may have thought or said they failed to provide any evidence of complicity by the mccanns in the death or disppearance of their daughter. or to put it another way they are innocent of any crime. 8(>((
No it doesn't.
A lack of evidence, is simply that.
So where do you think Madeleine is ?
Perhaps in a small lawless village, 10 miles out of PDL ( thank Edgar on that one ). >@@(*&)
-
Martha, you desperately wish to have a child, you try for years in vain, you're an only child and your parents are expecting you to give them a baby to love, you finally manage to have a IVF, it first doesn't result, then it does and you can't believe your eyes, this is the most beautiful day of your life, the best present ever got. Then 4 and half years later, you stupidly leave that child alone without locking the door, because your husband says "it will be fine", letting arrive the worst day of your life : your child isn't there any more, you have to tell your parents, are you going to tell them that you left the door open and some one passed by and took your child ? No, you feel so guilty, so ashamed, this is more than you can bear, you pretend shutters and window were forced.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau describes very well this feeling (a similar episode happened to him) in "Les confessions".
Is this an imaginary scenario you are depicting or do you believe this is what may actually have happened in PdL? Because if it is the latter, you seem to be suggesting that the McCanns lied to their family when they discovered that their child had vanished, not that they were involved in covering up her death, is that your view?
Martha, I think this scenario is plausible and fits the "we've let her down". I'm trying to understand, not to judge.
OK, thanks. Can I ask why you seem reluctant to consider the possibility that the McCanns simply mistakenly thought the shutters had been forced open? After all, would YOU not consider this a possibility if you returned home and discovered the window open and shutters up in a room where you had left everything closed?
Martha, If I returned home in a foreign country and discovered kid missing and open shutters and window I never touched and am not accustomed to, I think I'd keep screaming like a beast and alert the restaurant (local) people who'd call the police (I would look in the park). I wouldn't experiment opening from outside (I would be out of my mind), but once the police there I'd certainly discuss the opening issue.
The shutters/window question wasn't an issue in the GNR reports and in Silvia Bastista's one. John H tried to say those shutters weren't forced, but of course as an OC manager his words had a relative value.
I'm not reluctant to contemplate a misunderstanding, Martha, but if it wasn't disinformation, it should have been cleared up for the benefit and serenity of all.
-
So gilet, where is the relevant thread to the questions you say you answered ?
-
It was cleared up "for the benefit and serenity of all" shortly after the police arrived and it was established force was not used. The fact that the McCanns did not hold a press conference to announce this and apologise to the world for telling their nearest and dearest that they believed the shutters had been jemmied is something that we will all just have to learn to come to terms with. I know I have already, and I suggest that for the benefit of your own serenity you try and do the same.
If it was cleared up shortly after police arrived which was around 11pm on 3rd May,why was kate mccann telling relatives at 3.30am the next morning they had been forced? Was she not told?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/M_THOMPSON.htm
-
It was cleared up "for the benefit and serenity of all" shortly after the police arrived and it was established force was not used. The fact that the McCanns did not hold a press conference to announce this and apologise to the world for telling their nearest and dearest that they believed the shutters had been jemmied is something that we will all just have to learn to come to terms with. I know I have already, and I suggest that for the benefit of your own serenity you try and do the same.
If it was cleared up shortly after police arrived which was around 11pm on 3rd May,why was kate mccann telling relatives at 3.30am the next morning they had been forced? Was she not told?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/M_THOMPSON.htm
The inference (from the acknowledged and proven) fact that the shutters could be opened from the outside that they had been forced is not unreasonable, even if wrong ...
-
The inference (from the acknowledged and proven) fact that the shutters could be opened from the outside that they had been forced is not unreasonable, even if wrong ...
The shutters, even if easily opened from outside, could not stay wedged open in the manner Kate Mccann said they were. They would simply roll down again. Unless you open them from inside in the proper way with the webbing they do not stay up. Gerry Mccann will have discovered this if he tested them. The inference in their case was that the shutters were forced and the abductor entered through the window. Seeing as the window had never been opened for the duration of the holiday, unless an abductor smashed it or prised it open, for which there was no evidence, then no one entered the apartment thatway.
-
The inference (from the acknowledged and proven) fact that the shutters could be opened from the outside that they had been forced is not unreasonable, even if wrong ...
The shutters, even if easily opened from outside, could not stay wedged open in the manner Kate Mccann said they were. They would simply roll down again. Unless you open them from inside in the proper way with the webbing they do not stay up. Gerry Mccann will have discovered this if he tested them. The inference in their case was that the shutters were forced and the abductor entered through the window. Seeing as the window had never been opened for the duration of the holiday, unless an abductor smashed it or prised it open, for which there was no evidence, then no one entered the apartment thatway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzpniKAWvUI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzpniKAWvUI)
-
Hello Heri, that is one creepy video!
How can it be a true reflection on what could have happened when the window was most likely closed and locked. And what was that bag of flour supposed to represent being picked up? The child? Madeleine was not picked up just like that off the bed she was NOT sleeping on.
-
The inference (from the acknowledged and proven) fact that the shutters could be opened from the outside that they had been forced is not unreasonable, even if wrong ...
The shutters, even if easily opened from outside, could not stay wedged open in the manner Kate Mccann said they were. They would simply roll down again. Unless you open them from inside in the proper way with the webbing they do not stay up. Gerry Mccann will have discovered this if he tested them. The inference in their case was that the shutters were forced and the abductor entered through the window. Seeing as the window had never been opened for the duration of the holiday, unless an abductor smashed it or prised it open, for which there was no evidence, then no one entered the apartment thatway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzpniKAWvUI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzpniKAWvUI)
How can it be a true reflection on what could have happened when the window was most likely closed and locked. And what was that bag of flour supposed to represent being picked up? The child? Madeleine was not picked up just like that off the bed she was NOT sleeping on.
Nobody knows if the glass panes were locked or not. If they were not locked, then my hypothesis is:
May 3rd. 2007: between 21:40 and 21:49 approximately (or maybe between 21:15 and 21:19 approximately) the abductor took Madeleine without entering the apartment 5A, opening the window from the outside. Awakened by the noise and/or light from the opening, Madeleine went to the window, somewhat somnolent and very tired, and was taken
But at least, I think is well demonstrated the "break-in" without damaged. And how the shutters can be left in the position Kate encountered them from the outside.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com (http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com)