Can People Who Doubt the McCanns Safely Debate on This Forum ?

[DCI]

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.

[gilet]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Matthew Wyse]

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.   

[stephen25000]

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.   

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 ).  >@@(*&)

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[stephen25000]

So gilet, where is the relevant thread to the questions you say you answered ?

[Redblossom]

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

[ferryman]

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 ...

[Redblossom]

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.

[Heriberto Janosch]

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

[Redblossom]

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.

[Heriberto Janosch]

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

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