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 June 01, 2019, 10:39:52 PM
-
https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-profile
Join Jim Clemente (former FBI profiler), Laura Richards (formerly of New Scotland Yards, Founder and Director of Paladin, National Stalking Advocacy Service) and Lisa Zambetti (Casting director for CBS' Criminal Minds) as they profile behavior from real criminal cases.
From episode 182 to 187 the group discuss the McCann case.
-
https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-profile
Join Jim Clemente (former FBI profiler), Laura Richards (formerly of New Scotland Yards, Founder and Director of Paladin, National Stalking Advocacy Service) and Lisa Zambetti (Casting director for CBS' Criminal Minds) as they profile behavior from real criminal cases.
From episode 184 to 189 the group discuss the McCann case.
When I go to the link above it takes me to an index with "Episode 113: Dying To Be Heard". How do I go to higher numbered episodes from there?
-
When I go to the link above it takes me to an index with "Episode 113: Dying To Be Heard". How do I go to higher numbered episodes from there?
Not sure in soundcloud but here’s another link which should help https://player.fm/series/real-crime-profile-1437927/episode-183-victimology-and-timeline-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann
-
Not sure in soundcloud but here’s another link which should help https://player.fm/series/real-crime-profile-1437927/episode-183-victimology-and-timeline-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann
That covers the series you mentioned in the OP, thanks.
-
https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-profile
Join Jim Clemente (former FBI profiler), Laura Richards (formerly of New Scotland Yards, Founder and Director of Paladin, National Stalking Advocacy Service) and Lisa Zambetti (Casting director for CBS' Criminal Minds) as they profile behavior from real criminal cases.
From episode 182 to 187 the group discuss the McCann case.
I wonder who could be bothered to listen to it... Several hours by the looks of things... From people, who probably know less about the case than we, do
-
I wonder who could be bothered to listen to it... Several hours by the looks of things... From people, who probably know less about the case than we, do
Laura Richards is very clued up, for a change, and has had direct contact with some of the OG team. She mentions having a conversation with Redwood shortly after he was given the job of heading OG. She says he said immediately that the parents weren’t involved and that worried her.
-
Laura Richards is very clued up, for a change, and has had direct contact with some of the OG team. She mentions having a conversation with Redwood shortly after he was given the job of heading OG. She says he said immediately that the parents weren’t involved and that worried her.
so you immediately support one expert rather than another...based on your bias.....perhaps she didnt realise how much information redwood had...i would like to see her whole statement ..rather than a snippet
-
so you immediately support one expert rather than another...based on your bias.....perhaps she didnt realise how much information redwood had...i would like to see her whole statement ..rather than a snippet
Listen to the podcast then...she claims it in that.
And I didn’t immediately support one expert but listened to the podcast in its entirety...and found some good points were made.
One interesting point from Jim Clemente, the former FBI profiler, was that the claim by the parents that the Netflix series about the case would not help the search for their daughter was absolutely false. Clemente pointed out that it is exactly this kind of programme that helps raise awareness again of a cold case and often brings forward new useful information.
-
I note the usual rubbishing before a proper evaluation. Par for the course, I suppose.
-
I note the usual rubbishing before a proper evaluation. Par for the course, I suppose.
Then listen to the podcast... I'm simply giving my opinion
We've had 8 hours of Netflix and about the same from mark s... I really can't be bothered with anymore
-
Then listen to the podcast... I'm simply giving my opinion
We've had 8 hours of Netflix and about the same from mark s... I really can't be bothered with anymore
How can you obtain a balanced view of the case if you only listen to opinions that agree with yours ?
I read or listen to everything, both for abduction and against....you simply can’t profess to have a proper understanding of the case if you don’t do that.
-
How can you obtain a balanced view of the case if you only listen to opinions that agree with yours ?
I read or listen to everything, both for abduction and against....you simply can’t profess to have a proper understanding of the case if you don’t do that.
That's, absolute rubbish.. I'm in possession of all the available evidence and may well know more than those making this podcast... Have you listened to it..
I don't have to read the Koran to reject Islaam
-
That's, absolute rubbish.. I'm in possession of all the available evidence and may well know more than those making this podcast... Have you listened to it..
I don't have to read the Koran to reject Islaam
Yes I have listened to it. Laura Richards is very knowledgable about the case as well as having worked for SY and Jim Clemente brings his years of profiling expertise to the table. They are no Pat Brown or Sonia Poulton but have actual hands on knowledge of cases such as this one.
And of course you don’t need to read the Koran to reject Islam but you do if want your opinion to be knowledge based rather than reactionary.
-
Yes I have listened to it. Laura Richards is very knowledgable about the case as well as having worked for SY and Jim Clemente brings his years of profiling expertise to the table. They are no Pat Brown or Sonia Poulton but have actual hands on knowledge of cases such as this one.
And of course you don’t need to read the Koran to reject Islam but you do if want your opinion to be knowledge based rather than reactionary.
By their last statements neither amaral nor mark s have watched Netflix..
My decision to reject Islam is knowledge based.... I don't have to read the Koran to make that decision... Thst is a basic fact you don't seem to understand... Do I have to read everything creationists say before rejecting that
-
Yes I have listened to it. Laura Richards is very knowledgable about the case as well as having worked for SY and Jim Clemente brings his years of profiling expertise to the table. They are no Pat Brown or Sonia Poulton but have actual hands on knowledge of cases such as this one.
And of course you don’t need to read the Koran to reject Islam but you do if want your opinion to be knowledge based rather than reactionary.
So what new evidence did you learn
-
By their last statements neither amaral nor mark s have watched Netflix..
My decision to reject Islam is knowledge based.... I don't have to read the Koran to make that decision... Thst is a basic fact you don't seem to understand... Do I have to read everything creationists say before rejecting that
Not sure why you bring either Amaral or MS into this. I was talking about the podcast in the OP.
If you haven’t read the Koran where does your knowledge come from ? The Sun ?
-
if they mention a fact that I don't agree with how can we tell at what position was it said?
I can see how I can stop and start the podcast, but what happens if I want to refresh a part how can I go back?
-
Listen to the podcast then...she claims it in that.
And I didn’t immediately support one expert but listened to the podcast in its entirety...and found some good points were made.
One interesting point from Jim Clemente, the former FBI profiler, was that the claim by the parents that the Netflix series about the case would not help the search for their daughter was absolutely false. Clemente pointed out that it is exactly this kind of programme that helps raise awareness again of a cold case and often brings forward new useful information.
And yet when the parents have given interviews or written books or appeared in TV programmes sceptics like you rubbish their attempts saying they do not help in the search for their daughter. You really can’t win if you’re a McCann it seems.
-
So what new evidence did you learn
I think she learned that someone she considers to be worth listening to voiced some sentiments that chimed with hers, but you can be sure that had the sentiments not chimed with hers she wouldn’t have considered the opinions worth listening to. @)(++(*
-
if they mention a fact that I don't agree with how can we tell at what position was it said?
I can see how I can stop and start the podcast, but what happens if I want to refresh a part how can I go back?
At the bottom of the page, just above time display, there is a black bar that changes to grey as the pod progresses.
This can be moved back & forth with the mouse left button
-
Not sure why you bring either Amaral or MS into this. I was talking about the podcast in the OP.
If you haven’t read the Koran where does your knowledge come from ? The Sun ?
According to faith.. Sy... The PJ... And everyone else should listen to this podcast
-
As.... According to both investigations.... The current evidence does not implicate the mccanns... I fail to see how any podcast can really change that
-
According to faith.. Sy... The PJ... And everyone else should listen to this podcast
Whether anyone listens to it is entirely up to them. I simply said it was recorded by individuals who have experience in a case like this and was interesting by dint of that. Supporters are always deriding Poulton and Brown, sceptics Summers and Swann, for their lack of experience interpreting the evidence in such a case, both opinions I agree with btw. I was merely pointing all to individuals who do have that kind experience.
So your knowledge of the Koran ? Where did it come from ?
-
Not sure why you bring either Amaral or MS into this. I was talking about the podcast in the OP.
If you haven’t read the Koran where does your knowledge come from ? The Sun ?
It wasn't the sun... It was a debate at the Oxford Union.... That's a top university in the UK and nothing to do with the Sun...
It seems you have to believe Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and accept he married Ayesha when she was 9 but didn't consummate the marriage till she was 12.
I don't need to read anymore
-
Whether anyone listens to it is entirely up to them. I simply said it was recorded by individuals who have experience in a case like this and was interesting by dint of that. Supporters are always deriding Poulton and Brown, sceptics Summers and Swann, for their lack of experience interpreting the evidence in such a case, both opinions I agree with btw. I was merely pointing all to individuals who do have that kind experience.
So your knowledge of the Koran ? Where did it come from ?
See above... The Oxford Union debate was one of many sources..
islam takes a lot of its teachings from the old testament ...misogony..homophobia....and not eating pork....
-
I had forgotten how irritating I find Gerry's voice
-
I had forgotten how irritating I find Gerry's voice
I hear he speaks highly of your dulcet tones though.
-
I think you just made that up 8(0(*
-
At the bottom of the page, just above time display, there is a black bar that changes to grey as the pod progresses.
This can be moved back & forth with the mouse left button
I still can't find that on the page I'm looking at.
-
At the bottom of the page, just above time display, there is a black bar that changes to grey as the pod progresses.
This can be moved back & forth with the mouse left button
Is there any chance of copying the URL for each page (each episode) where the black bar is visible to you?
-
It wasn't the sun... It was a debate at the Oxford Union.... That's a top university in the UK and nothing to do with the Sun...
It seems you have to believe Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and accept he married Ayesha when she was 9 but didn't consummate the marriage till she was 12.
I don't need to read anymore
I’ve attended several debates at the Oxford Union and it’s not a university, it’s a debating society.....and not everything that is espoused there is true...you do know this, don’t you ? Tommy Robinson was invited to speak at the Oxford Union. Do you agree with his world view ? Further the bible tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin, died and rose from the dead..that he could feed five thousand people with just some loaves and fishes. Are you also sceptical about the bible and Christianity ?
Now back on topic.
-
What I'm hearing so far not all the people on the podcast agree but Jim Clemente seems to be very sensible. The other two (Laura Richards Lisa Zambetti) may find him a bit dominating.
-
Is there any chance of copying the URL for each page (each episode) where the black bar is visible to you?
I'm using Firefox and if you right click on each episode it gives an option to save a link to that episode.
Same works in chrome.
So you could save all episodes in a folder
-
I'm using Firefox and if you right click on each episode it gives an option to save a link to that episode.
Yes I got it now if I right click on the play button and copy the URL and open a tab using that URL I get the black bar. Thanks.
-
The staff at the kids club were not interviewed - this point was raised in Episode 186.
-
I’ve attended several debates at the Oxford Union and it’s not a university, it’s a debating society.....and not everything that is espoused there is true...you do know this, don’t you ? Tommy Robinson was invited to speak at the Oxford Union. Do you agree with his world view ? Further the bible tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin, died and rose from the dead..that he could feed five thousand people with just some loaves and fishes. Are you also sceptical about the bible and Christianity ?
Now back on topic.
I dont beleive in the bible...the virgin birth was probably a mistranslation
-
I dont beleive in the bible...the virgin birth was probably a mistranslation
So you reject Christianity as well as Islam.
-
Saint Paul obviously used a dodgy translator .
Probably one of them phillistines who hadn't learned his latin proper @)(++(*
-
Lack of appealing to the public for information on similar cases - Episode 186
"Clear the ground beneath your feet"
The orphanage collectors were never identified -
Another intruder case. - not solved.
Laura says the Tanner sighting was proven to be another holiday maker. - that doesn't gel with me.
-
Saint Paul obviously used a dodgy translator .
Probably one of them phillistines who hadn't learned his latin proper @)(++(*
@)(++(*
-
Lack of appealing to the public for information on similar cases - Episode 186
"Clear the ground beneath your feet"
The orphanage collectors were never identified -
Another intruder case. - not solved.
Laura says the Tanner sighting was proven to be another holiday maker. - that doesn't gel with me.
Should you ever visit Luz, here is your short intro to orphanage collectors.
The dodgy ones work the holiday accommodation. They get 10€ from you, then rapidly scuttle off to avoid the GNR.
The genuine ones work the popular public locales, get 10€ off you, then stay in situ because there is no need to scuttle off.
-
So you reject Christianity as well as Islam.
of course...
-
Saint Paul obviously used a dodgy translator .
Probably one of them phillistines who hadn't learned his latin proper @)(++(*
it was hebrew to greek
-
of course...
Don't we all?
-
Whether anyone listens to it is entirely up to them. I simply said it was recorded by individuals who have experience in a case like this and was interesting by dint of that. Supporters are always deriding Poulton and Brown, sceptics Summers and Swann, for their lack of experience interpreting the evidence in such a case, both opinions I agree with btw. I was merely pointing all to individuals who do have that kind experience.
So your knowledge of the Koran ? Where did it come from ?
The Oxford university perchance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with your first sentences thanks for bringing this to the forum Faith.
I only got to read the last one . Makes a lot of sense. The discussion about Huntly and how he was cornered was very interesting indeed! (They also mention that knowing smirk as a give-a-way), asking questions of police officers and trying to get involved with the investigation.
They also discussed what I have been saying for years the PJ should have separated the tapas/parents interviewed them separately to decide if further investigation was required or to release them as cleared. speaking to very senior Social workers at an event recently on child protection. they all nodded that the Social services would have been called in instantly by the police. as the parents of all children were removed and questioned separately and individually. All that drama about shutters windows and moving doors would have been investigated there and then! God knows what detectives in this country would make of the screraming ans wailing which took place.
-
of course...
Then why single Islam out ?
-
The Oxford university perchance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with your first sentences thanks for bringing this to the forum Faith.
I only got to read the last one . Makes a lot of sense. The discussion about Huntly and how he was cornered was very interesting indeed! (They also mention that knowing smirk as a give-a-way), asking questions of police officers and trying to get involved with the investigation.
They also discussed what I have been saying for years the PJ should have separated the tapas/parents interviewed them separately to decide if further investigation was required or to release them as cleared. speaking to very senior Social workers at an event recently on child protection. they all nodded that the Social services would have been called in instantly by the police. as the parents of all children were removed and questioned separately and individually. All that drama about shutters windows and moving doors would have been investigated there and then! God knows what detectives in this country would make of the screraming ans wailing which took place.
I think that’s what the tapas bunch were afraid of......that they would be treated the same as they would have had they neglected their children in the UK and something had happened to one of them.
-
Then why single Islam out ?
Ive read the bible... But not the Koran
-
The Oxford university perchance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with your first sentences thanks for bringing this to the forum Faith.
I only got to read the last one . Makes a lot of sense. The discussion about Huntly and how he was cornered was very interesting indeed! (They also mention that knowing smirk as a give-a-way), asking questions of police officers and trying to get involved with the investigation.
They also discussed what I have been saying for years the PJ should have separated the tapas/parents interviewed them separately to decide if further investigation was required or to release them as cleared. speaking to very senior Social workers at an event recently on child protection. they all nodded that the Social services would have been called in instantly by the police. as the parents of all children were removed and questioned separately and individually. All that drama about shutters windows and moving doors would have been investigated there and then! God knows what detectives in this country would make of the screraming ans wailing which took place.
So the PJ were, at fault.... Agreed
-
So the PJ were, at fault.... Agreed
Yes, they were! why do you think all sceptics think the police made mistakes. There mistakes let the parents off those poor children off to become celebrities.
The PR mob caught on right away and made good use of that, along with help from the TAPAS being all British like and Doctors as well oh my...
Amaral and the McCanns did say they were treated with kid gloves at the start.
-
Ive read the bible... But not the Koran
So your opinion of the bible is based on knowledge but not your opinion of the Koran....except if you constitute attending a debate at the Oxford Union ( not university) as ‘knowledge’ of a whole religion.
-
So your opinion of the bible is based on knowledge but not your opinion of the Koran....except if you constitute attending a debate at the Oxford Union ( not university) as ‘knowledge’ of a whole religion.
I said that was part of my knowledge ....you are obviously interested in the rest.
I have a great interest in religion although Im an agnostic...I probably mentioned the Koran because Ive been raeding about Sufism due to an interest in Rumi...the Persian poet. Im interested in mysticism in all religions. Ive read lots about most religions...mick brown....a guardian journalist...wrote a wonderful book 20 years ago called the Spirtitual Tourist... I read it and later took off to India to follow in some of his footsteps...
im certainly not anti religion and not an islamaphobe,... I respect everyone and their beliefs
-
I said that was part of my knowledge ....you are obviously interested in the rest.
I have a great interest in religion although Im an agnostic...I probably mentioned the Koran because Ive been raeding about Sufism due to an interest in Rumi...the Persian poet. Im interested in mysticism in all religions. Ive read lots about most religions...mick brown....a guardian journalist...wrote a wonderful book 20 years ago called the Spirtitual Tourist... I read it and later took off to India to follow in some of his footsteps...
im certainly not anti religion and not an islamaphobe,... I respect everyone and their beliefs
So your interest in religion does not extend to reading the source material, such as the Koran.
As to respecting everyone and their beliefs, your own words damn you yet again.
‘My decision to reject Islam is knowledge based.... I don't have to read the Koran to make that decision... Thst is a basic fact you don't seem to understand..’
-
So your interest in religion does not extend to reading the source material, such as the Koran.
As to respecting everyone and their beliefs, your own words damn you yet again.
‘My decision to reject Islam is knowledge based.... I don't have to read the Koran to make that decision... Thst is a basic fact you don't seem to understand..’
all your opinion...I dont have to read the Koran to reject islam...that is a basic fact you dont understand.
If I beleive the scientific creationist theory I automatically reject the deity creation theory...
as i have said...its you who doesnt understand simple logic
-
I said that was part of my knowledge ....you are obviously interested in the rest.
I have a great interest in religion although Im an agnostic...I probably mentioned the Koran because Ive been raeding about Sufism due to an interest in Rumi...the Persian poet. Im interested in mysticism in all religions. Ive read lots about most religions...mick brown....a guardian journalist...wrote a wonderful book 20 years ago called the Spirtitual Tourist... I read it and later took off to India to follow in some of his footsteps...
im certainly not anti religion and not an islamaphobe,... I respect everyone and their beliefs
Italics... How very tolerant of you. Murder /rape/ torture /imprisonment, induced mental conditioning(brainwashing) in the name of sky fairies.
Oh OK. I find myself to be very intolerant of 'religious' people.
I find that when someone brings their religious belief of their chosen God into a debate- they lose!
-
Italics... How very tolerant of you. Murder /rape/ torture /imprisonment, induced mental conditioning(brainwashing) in the name of sky fairies.
Oh OK. I find myself to be very intolerant of 'religious' people.
I find that when someone brings their religious belief of their chosen God into a debate- they lose!
what percentage of religious poeplle believe in murder ...rape and torture...you need to get your facts right
-
The staff at the kids club were not interviewed - this point was raised in Episode 186.
By interviewed do they mean they should have been made arguidos? I think Jim Laura have this fact wrong. IMO All the nannies were at least spoken to. Do they want them investigated in depth?
-
Italics... How very tolerant of you. Murder /rape/ torture /imprisonment, induced mental conditioning(brainwashing) in the name of sky fairies.
Oh OK. I find myself to be very intolerant of 'religious' people.
I find that when someone brings their religious belief of their chosen God into a debate- they lose!
Do you reject Islam? Apparently you can’t unless you’ve actually read the Koran. @)(++(*
-
Do you reject Islam? Apparently you can’t unless you’ve actually read the Koran. @)(++(*
Do you have to read it in Arabic?
-
Do you have to read it in Arabic?
What other way is there to read it?
-
What other way is there to read it?
What about reading a fine English translation in the shower?
-
all your opinion...I dont have to read the Koran to reject islam...that is a basic fact you dont understand.
If I beleive the scientific creationist theory I automatically reject the deity creation theory...
as i have said...its you who doesnt understand simple logic
If you haven’t read the Koran what do you base your rejection on ?
-
If you haven’t read the Koran what do you base your rejection on ?
God told me it's not true
-
God told me it's not true
Is everything alright Davel?
-
God told me it's not true
I assume it was the same with this case ?
That would explain it.
-
I assume it was the same with this case ?
That would explain it.
There is a problem with assumptions, you will find they are often wrong.
-
There is a problem with assumptions, you will find they are often wrong.
Like assuming a child has been abducted.
-
Like assuming a child has been abducted.
Put it into a comprehensive theory then.
-
Like assuming a child has been abducted.
It’s the only plausible and logical assumption.
-
on Episode 187 - Clearing the Ground From Under Your Feet: Madeleine McCann
They feel Perlin should analyse the DNA results.
They rip into Pat Brown.
Jim explains how Jez and Gerry don't see Jane pass by them.
-
on Episode 187 - Clearing the Ground From Under Your Feet: Madeleine McCann
They feel Perlin should analyse the DNA results.
They rip into Pat Brown.
Jim explains how Jez and Gerry don't see Jane pass by them.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to it for us, Rob.
What were their explanations for Jes and Gerry not seeing Jane ... was peripheral vision one of them?
-
Thank you for taking the time to listen to it for us, Rob.
What were their explanations for Jes and Gerry not seeing Jane ... was peripheral vision one of them?
Nope. Peripheral vision wasn’t mentioned.
-
Thank you for taking the time to listen to it for us, Rob.
What were their explanations for Jes and Gerry not seeing Jane ... was peripheral vision one of them?
Must admit to falling asleep listening to last one. Their explanation for not seeing Jane was concentration. There is an experiment where people are asked to count the number of times a ball is passed between the team but very few see the gorilla walk across the court. Have you tested yourself on that one?
-
Must admit to falling asleep listening to last one. Their explanation for not seeing Jane was concentration. There is an experiment where people are asked to count the number of times a ball is passed between the team but very few see the gorilla walk across the court. Have you tested yourself on that one?
That experiment doesn’t count if you’re a sceptic and you’re discussing the recollections of the McCanns and their friends.
-
That experiment doesn’t count if you’re a sceptic and you’re discussing the recollections of the McCanns and their friends.
It's a well-known psychological test.
Allegedly, a bunch of policemen were training at a police college.
During a lecture, a workman entered and went to the rear of the class. A short while later the man exited by the same door at the front of the lecture room.
Towards the end of the session, the policemen were asked to describe what had happened.
'Well, I think he was carrying a bucket, so I assume he washed the windows'. The workman hadn't.
How would the class describe this 'perpetrator'? Basically, they couldn't.
*%87
-
The experiment is a valid one and very interesting.
Doesn't quite translate to 3 people crossing paths (or not) in a quiet little road in a holiday resort. Two fellas, one 6' 3" with a push chair, the other a boisterous Glaswegian, both chatting. No gorilla required.
-
Perhaps someone should devise a psychological test to determine why sceptics accept the fallibilty of human memory in all circumstances except the Madeleine McCann case, in particular the parents and their friends.
-
The experiment is a valid one and very interesting.
Doesn't quite translate to 3 people crossing paths (or not) in a quiet little road in a holiday resort. Two fellas, one 6' 3" with a push chair, the other a boisterous Glaswegian, both chatting. No gorilla required.
I walked past an acquaintance last week, our shoulders approximately two feet apart, in broad daylight with no one else around. I am not registered blind but didn’t see him until he stopped in his tracks turned round and called me. How do you explain this phenomenon? I was on a mission, lost in my own thoughts and avoiding eye contact, but I’m not a liar or insane.
-
Must admit to falling asleep listening to last one. Their explanation for not seeing Jane was concentration. There is an experiment where people are asked to count the number of times a ball is passed between the team but very few see the gorilla walk across the court. Have you tested yourself on that one?
Rob ... all my life I have walked past people my nearest and dearest included ... I don't need any experiment to prove it can be done very easily ... I have never doubted for a moment that that the men did not see Jane ... I have never doubted for a moment that Jane saw a man carrying a child on the road ahead of her.
We now know that there was a distinctive looking man doing just that around the time in question ... yet there is no mention of any witness seeing him.
-
Rob ... all my life I have walked past people my nearest and dearest included ... I don't need any experiment to prove it can be done very easily ... I have never doubted for a moment that that the men did not see Jane ... I have never doubted for a moment that Jane saw a man carrying a child on the road ahead of her.
We now know that there was a distinctive looking man doing just that around the time in question ... yet there is no mention of any witness seeing him.
Amaral claimed that Jane turned left into the footpath before she got to the men and that is why they never saw her. He also claimed that Jane saw the man carrying the child from her northern balcony. All very strange indeed.
If the innocent tourist was the man Jane saw then why was he walking from west to east which was the opposite direction to that reported by him?
-
It's a well-known psychological test.
Allegedly, a bunch of policemen were training at a police college.
During a lecture, a workman entered and went to the rear of the class. A short while later the man exited by the same door at the front of the lecture room.
Towards the end of the session, the policemen were asked to describe what had happened.
'Well, I think he was carrying a bucket, so I assume he washed the windows'. The workman hadn't.
How would the class describe this 'perpetrator'? Basically, they couldn't.
*%87
Did any of them fail to see him at all?
-
Amaral claimed that Jane turned left into the footpath before she got to the men and that is why they never saw her. He also claimed that Jane saw the man carrying the child from her northern balcony. All very strange indeed.
If the innocent tourist was the man Jane saw then why was he walking from west to east which was the opposite direction to that reported by him?
Exactly. Some of us spotted this because we know Praia de Luz front, back and sideways.
I can't speak for Andy Redwood. Did he ever go there?
-
Exactly. Some of us spotted this because we know Praia de Luz front, back and sideways.
I can't speak for Andy Redwood. Did he ever go there?
Several times including his last throw of the dice before he retired from the MET when they dug up the waste ground near the shore looking for Maddie's remains.
-
Did any of them fail to see him at all?
I don't know.
This tale comes from many a year ago. That's why I wrapped it in an allegedly, before someone wielded the cite bludgeon.
-
Several times including his last throw of the dice before he retired from the MET when they dug up the waste ground near the shore looking for Maddie's remains.
That's news to me.
Do you have any further information you would care to share?
-
Several times including his last throw of the dice before he retired from the MET when they dug up the waste ground near the shore looking for Maddie's remains.
So how did he fail to see what most of us know?
-
That's news to me.
Do you have any further information you would care to share?
Are you asking for a Cite?
-
Amaral claimed that Jane turned left into the footpath before she got to the men and that is why they never saw her. He also claimed that Jane saw the man carrying the child from her northern balcony. All very strange indeed.
If the innocent tourist was the man Jane saw then why was he walking from west to east which was the opposite direction to that reported by him?
??
That doesn't ring any bells for me, John.
The Tanner / O'Brien flat didn't have a north balcony, did it?
-
Are you asking for a Cite?
No, I'm not a fan of the cite game. *&^^&
I was enquiring as to whether John had any further snippets of information, because I am intrigued as to when and how this occurred. I could then put out feelers in Luz to see if more can be ascertained.
It's called progress. &^^&*
-
No, I'm not a fan of the cite game. *&^^&
I was enquiring as to whether John had any further snippets of information, because I am intrigued as to when and how this occurred. I could then put out feelers in Luz to see if more can be ascertained.
It's called progress. &^^&*
Oh Good. I'm not very good at Cites either.
-
Oh Good. I'm not very good at Cites either.
I'm simply not fond of them.
My blog posts are normally based on meticulous, extensive and mind numbing research.
That's why I prefer not to bore my readers to sleep doing a Wikipedia.
-
I'm simply not fond of them.
My blog posts are normally based on meticulous, extensive and mind numbing research.
That's why I prefer not to bore my readers to sleep doing a Wikipedia.
I don't know. As usual I am halfy halfy on this.
-
??
That doesn't ring any bells for me, John.
The Tanner / O'Brien flat didn't have a north balcony, did it?
The nearest I got to combining Jane's recollection to the Amaral theory was that Jane may have seen the man from her South facing balcony as he was walking the lane at the back of the apartments. That would get the field of vision correct, he would walk from her left to the right, but every other detail would be wrong.
-
I don't know. As usual I am halfy halfy on this.
It's an interesting thought.
I am nearly ready to post 'Liverpool Cocker Spaniel' on my blog. If I did a Wiki, it would need at least 10 cites.
I would opine that Wiki would be vastly improved by cutting the articles to half-length and chopping out two thirds of the cites.
-
It's an interesting thought.
I am nearly ready to post 'Liverpool Cocker Spaniel' on my blog. If I did a Wiki, it would need at least 10 cites.
I would opine that Wiki would be vastly improved by cutting the articles to half-length and chopping out two thirds of the cites.
And who would do that?
-
And who would do that?
Whoever fancies a rich business opportunity?
-
I'm simply not fond of them.
My blog posts are normally based on meticulous, extensive and mind numbing research.
That's why I prefer not to bore my readers to sleep doing a Wikipedia.
Cites, separate fact from possible fiction... That's, why they are important... They are a form of evidence
-
Cites, separate fact from possible fiction... That's, why they are important... They are a form of evidence
Perhaps that is true for pertinent cites. Hardly for rubbish claimed as a cite.
-
That's news to me.
Do you have any further information you would care to share?
Looking back, he was there in May 2014 to liaise with the PJ, the first week of June 2014 searching scrubland etc and also December 2014 to question new suspects.
-
Perhaps that is true for pertinent cites. Hardly for rubbish claimed as a cite.
Depends who says the cite is rubbish... Without supporting evidence. ...that claim is rubbish
-
??
That doesn't ring any bells for me, John.
The Tanner / O'Brien flat didn't have a north balcony, did it?
Sorry Carana, that should have been the walkway alcove on the north side.
-
Looking back, he was there in May 2014 to liaise with the PJ, the first week of June 2014 searching scrubland etc and also December 2014 to question new suspects.
OK. *&(+(+
I would have thought May 2014 was in Faro or Portimão, but not Luz.
In June 2014, I watched Andy's helicopter doing circuits over Luz, with a Sky helicopter in close attendance. As I was not really interested in the case at that time, I don't recall firsthand seeing him there, though he obviously was.
I remember a female GNR officer on perimeter duty talking to me. I remember seeing the blonde-haired female dog handler with a long pony-tail getting her cadaver dog to search the site. Plus more.
December 2014 was definitely in Faro, not Luz.
I don't know what OG relied on re Luz. Perhaps LP had stuffed Holmes with all they needed.
However, AFAIK, OG has not deployed in Luz, with the exception of the digs.
-
OK. *&(+(+
I would have thought May 2014 was in Faro or Portimão, but not Luz.
In June 2014, I watched Andy's helicopter doing circuits over Luz, with a Sky helicopter in close attendance. As I was not really interested in the case at that time, I don't recall firsthand seeing him there, though he obviously was.
I remember a female GNR officer on perimeter duty talking to me. I remember seeing the blonde-haired female dog handler with a long pony-tail getting her cadaver dog to search the site. Plus more.
December 2014 was definitely in Faro, not Luz.
I don't know what OG relied on re Luz. Perhaps LP had stuffed Holmes with all they needed.
However, AFAIK, OG has not deployed in Luz, with the exception of the digs.
Thanks for that. Someone from OG should have walked the streets at the very least.
-
Details are important and there's more than one way to find/check them. The location of the night creche isn't difficult to find; it's in the files, as are maps showing it's position in relation to G5A.
I remember how Colin Sutton's team's attention to the details in the Bellfield case enabled them to place him in the vicinity of Milly Dowler's disappearance.
-
Thanks for that. Someone from OG should have walked the streets at the very least.
They wouldn't want a media scrum so undoubtedly any visits to Praia da Luz were accomplished in total secrecy.
-
They wouldn't want a media scrum so undoubtedly any visits to Praia da Luz were accomplished in total secrecy.
It didn't have to be Andy Redwood doing the walking. And anyway, haven't they got any maps?
-
Details are important and there's more than one way to find/check them. The location of the night creche isn't difficult to find; it's in the files, as are maps showing it's position in relation to G6A.
I remember how Colin Sutton's team's attention to the details in the Bellfield case enabled them to place him in the vicinity of Milly Dowler's disappearance.
It was Bellfields ex girlfriend who gave Sutton Belfields name... The rest wasn't too difficult ....
-
It didn't have to be Andy Redwood doing the walking. And anyway, haven't they got any maps?
Maps don't cut it.
Come down to Luz and I'll show you why.
You cannot see the view from south of block 4 on any map.
-
It was Bellfields ex girlfriend who gave Sutton Belfields name... The rest wasn't too difficult ....
Really? How do you know that?
-
Maps don't cut it.
Come down to Luz and I'll show you why.
You cannot see the view from south of block 4 on any map.
I wish I could afford to. I would love to have a good look around. And you and I are hardly likely to fall out.
It has been many years since I was in Portugal, three times actually, around the time of The Glorious Revolution, the first and the second Revolutions, that is. It was a bit hairy once or twice, but my memories of Portugal are all good.
-
It didn't have to be Andy Redwood doing the walking. And anyway, haven't they got any maps?
There's no substitute for being there at the scene of any alleged crime for an officer leading such a high profile investigation. It's amazing the things you find which don't show up on any maps. And as for Google maps, it is only really relevant to trafficked roads and not footpaths or back gardens.
-
Really? How do you know that?
I've read about the case...
-
There's no substitute for being there at the scene of any alleged crime for an officer leading such a high profile investigation.
Then in that case he should have done it. Starting at 5a. I know more about Praia de Luz than he appears to.
-
I wish I could afford to. I would love to have a good look around. And you and I are hardly likely to fall out.
It has been many years since I was in Portugal, three times actually, around the time of The Glorious Revolution, the first and the second Revolutions, that is. It was a bit hairy once or twice, but my memories of Portugal are all good.
OK, your task is to finance and organise your trip to Luz.
We have a guest bedroom, to which you are welcome, free of charge.
We can also whirlygig you around the locale, and throw in more cooked meals than you can possibly eat.
Come on, be a daemon, what can possibly go wrong?
-
OK, your task is to finance and organise your trip to Luz.
We have a guest bedroom, to which you are welcome, free of charge.
We can also whirlygig you around the locale, and throw in more cooked meals than you can possibly eat.
Come on, be a daemon, what can possibly go wrong?
That is a really kind offer, and I am sure that it is genuinely meant. I will give it some serious thought. It's time I ventured away from here, much as I love it.
-
That is a really kind offer, and I am sure that it is genuinely meant. I will give it some serious thought. It's time I ventured away from here, much as I love it.
Just bear in mind that I am as scatty as you are. &^^&*
Gonçalo barks at strangers, but he does not bite.
Perhaps you would like to take tea with our KGB forensic clean-up team? Yes, MBM related, but shoosh. Perhaps coffee and nuns farts is more appropriate?
Think it through. I reckon if you came down for 3 days or a week, we could have a truly wonderful adventure.
-
Just bear in mind that I am as scatty as you are. &^^&*
Gonçalo barks at strangers, but he does not bite.
Perhaps you would like to take tea with our KGB forensic clean-up team? Yes, MBM related, but shoosh. Perhaps coffee and nuns farts is more appropriate?
Think it through. I reckon if you came down for 3 days or a week, we could have a truly wonderful adventure.
It wouldn't be much fun if we weren't scatty, would it. Although I prefer Eccentric, if thats okay. Personally, I think I am perfectly normal.
Dogs don't bother me at all. I like them you see.
Not sure about the nun farts. Do they contain alcohol? If so, I might reconsider.
-
It wouldn't be much fun if we weren't scatty, would it. Although I prefer Eccentric, if thats okay. Personally, I think I am perfectly normal.
Dogs don't bother me at all. I like them you see.
Not sure about the nun farts. Do they contain alcohol? If so, I might reconsider.
According to my research, they are small patisseries served with a coffee, and much beloved in France.
I'm sure we could get a glass of drinkipoos as an accompaniment. &^^&*
-
Details are important and there's more than one way to find/check them. The location of the night creche isn't difficult to find; it's in the files, as are maps showing it's position in relation to G6A.
I remember how Colin Sutton's team's attention to the details in the Bellfield case enabled them to place him in the vicinity of Milly Dowler's disappearance.
Why did you specify G6A?
-
Why did you specify G6A?
Sorry, it should have said 5 [amended original post]
-
I've read about the case...
Where does it say it wasn't difficult once they had his name?
-
Where does it say it wasn't difficult once they had his name?
Once you’ve got a name it becomes very much easier to crack the case by amassing evidence against the named individual, or do you disagree?
-
Where does it say it wasn't difficult once they had his name?
its obvious...they had his name...they had a statement he was a violent rapist...he had a white van.....how difficuly wsa it to make the connection
-
its obvious...they had his name...they had a statement he was a violent rapist...he had a white van.....how difficuly wsa it to make the connection
So that is an assumption.
-
So that is an assumption.
no its not an assumption...its a fact....sutton wa sgiven belfields violent history...are you familiar withe the case
-
As far as I can see Laura Richards is a bit thick. At approximately 41 minutes into Episode 183 she raises the issue of Cuddle Cat and makes quite a major investigatory finding based on the fact that the toy was left behind.
IMO if Madeleine was woken during the night her concern would be to find her Mum and Dad and since the room was dark she would not have the ability to find her shoes or to find cuddle cat.
To me it is ridiculous to say Madeleine didn't leave the apartment on her own (what we call woke and wandered) just based on the fact that cuddle cat was left behind.
Jim Clemente can he heard making a grunting sound which can be interpreted as agreeing with Laura, but I wonder if he had really thought that one through properly.
He partially argues that if Madeleine did always take the toy with her, that may have been a sign to Kate. But as far as I know Madeleine didn't take cuddle cat with her continually, or did she?
It may have been something used to help Madeleine go off to sleep, something to cuddle.
Jim Clemente says his belief is that someone is holding Madeleine against her wishes or has killed her and hidden her body (current outcome). That is a sensible choice but the question then becomes did this start from within the apartment or from a place outside the apartment.
IMO those two options remain regardless as to what her current outcome is.
-
As far as I can see Laura Richards is a bit thick. At approximately 41 minutes into Episode 183 she raises the issue of Cuddle Cat and makes quite a major investigatory finding based on the fact that the toy was left behind.
IMO if Madeleine was woken during the night her concern would be to find her Mum and Dad and since the room was dark she would not have the ability to find her shoes or to find cuddle cat.
To me it is ridiculous to say Madeleine didn't leave the apartment on her own (what we call woke and wandered) just based on the fact that cuddle cat was left behind.
Jim Clemente can he heard making a grunting sound which can be interpreted as agreeing with Laura, but I wonder if he had really thought that one through properly.
He partially argues that if Madeleine did always take the toy with her, that may have been a sign to Kate. But as far as I know Madeleine didn't take cuddle cat with her continually, or did she?
It may have been something used to help Madeleine go off to sleep, something to cuddle.
Jim Clemente says his belief is that someone is holding Madeleine against her wishes or has killed her and hidden her body (current outcome). That is a sensible choice but the question then becomes did this start from within the apartment or from a place outside the apartment.
IMO those two options remain regardless as to what her current outcome is.
It appears that the woke and wandered theory is gaining prominence at last after ten years of being ridiculed.
-
It appears that the woke and wandered theory is gaining prominence at last after ten years of being ridiculed.
It is 12 years now. The early reports were that people were looking for a girl that had wandered off and that she was likely asleep under a tree somewhere and will be soon found. It certainly wasn't ridiculed that first night.
What I'd like to understand was when did that change?
OK there is the problem of explaining a raised shutter and open window if Madeleine wasn't abducted, but in my mind they are explained by an attempted burglary (and that is proposed as the event that wakes Madeleine), Maybe she goes and hides and later escapes via the front door. There doesn't have to be the immediate exit from the apartment. Madeleine could have been hiding in the apartment when Matt arrives. Hiding quietly and escaped afterwards.
-
It appears that the woke and wandered theory is gaining prominence at last after ten years of being ridiculed.
As is the innocence of the parents... And that's still being ridiculed
-
no its not an assumption...its a fact....sutton wa sgiven belfields violent history...are you familiar withe the case
It's clear you're not imo.
-
It's clear you're not imo.
I am... All the facts are in the public domain... Would Sutton have found belfield without him being given the name and his extremely violent history... Probably not imo
-
It's clear you're not imo.
Could you explain on what evidence you base your opinion... I think you are, simply basing your opinion on basis... You are, welcome to prove me wrong... I doubt you can
-
Could you explain on what evidence you base your opinion... I think you are, simply basing your opinion on basis... You are, welcome to prove me wrong... I doubt you can
I would think this will take the thread well off track.
-
I would think this will take the thread well off track.
Then gunits accusation should be removed... It's total mudslinging... I'm very familiar with the case... It's unfair to make baseless allegations
-
It appears that the woke and wandered theory is gaining prominence at last after ten years of being ridiculed.
I don't see that, John.
How can the suppositions of three individuals with absolutely no working knowledge or experience of Madeleine's case have any relevance ... their ruminations carry no more weight than do ours.
They are discussing a police investigation in a historical context as if it were a 'cold case' which began and ended with the failure to determine what crime had been committed against Madeleine.
Which I think totally ignores the fact that whether jointly or severally Scotland Yard and the Judicial police are currently undertaking investigations into an abduction with Madeleine at the heart of it.
I have seen nothing emanating from current police sources suggesting any other line of enquiry ... as far as I am concerned the present 'woke and wandered' discussion is the brainchild of podcasters who have been driving the agenda for the past few months in the necessary lack of official news at a the current sensitive stage of a live investigation.
The police are probably quite happy to have the heat taken off them while they get on with the job in hand.
-
I'm listening to Episode 184 again.
I must admit Jim Clemente is an expert in his field. First 34 minutes nothing too controversial.
-
Then gunits accusation should be removed... It's total mudslinging... I'm very familiar with the case... It's unfair to make baseless allegations
Her opinion. You might be but could you both take the discussion to a new thread.
OK I invite you both to discuss Levi Bellfield as Laura Richards mentions his case in Episode 187 , 39 minutes into the episode.
-
I don't see that, John.
How can the suppositions of three individuals with absolutely no working knowledge or experience of Madeleine's case have any relevance ... their ruminations carry no more weight than do ours.
They are discussing a police investigation in a historical context as if it were a 'cold case' which began and ended with the failure to determine what crime had been committed against Madeleine.
Which I think totally ignores the fact that whether jointly or severally Scotland Yard and the Judicial police are currently undertaking investigations into an abduction with Madeleine at the heart of it.
I have seen nothing emanating from current police sources suggesting any other line of enquiry ... as far as I am concerned the present 'woke and wandered' discussion is the brainchild of podcasters who have been driving the agenda for the past few months in the necessary lack of official news at a the current sensitive stage of a live investigation.
The police are probably quite happy to have the heat taken off them while they get on with the job in hand.
You appear to have misunderstood me. These podcasters don't support the woke and wandered theory and that upset me.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10745.msg533116#msg533116
-
You appear to have misunderstood me. These podcasters don't support the woke and wandered theory and that upset me.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10745.msg533116#msg533116
I was responding to John's post, Rob http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10745.msg533118#msg533118 not yours ;)
-
What scenarios does Jim Gamble or anyone else imagine that would have lead to Madeleine waking and wandering from the apartment to a place where her body has NEVER been discovered? Never is a long time in the case of a missing child with no shoes on.
There are more problems with the woke and wandered theory than explaining the shutter, IMO. There is also no explanation of where she woke and wandered to that has lead to her body NEVER being discovered? Lack of a body is what lead Jim Clemente to discount woke and wandered. On that and the shutter, I agree. The fact Jim Gamble claims to consider it, astonishes me for those obvious reasons. If his professional opinion is that the woke and wandered theory is a viable option, it has to raise serious questions about the quality of his professionalism IMO.
Well if any kid wakes up and goes wandering, it doesn't just die the next minute. So what is the missing step?
They were talking about an accidental death out of the apartment. As soon as a kid walks out of a house what scenarios could it die from.
1. Being stuck in the lift in block 5 is one scenario Misty raised, and I had noted all along no one ever said they looked in the lift let alone the lift shaft.
2. Beyond that there is the possibility of being run over by a car, a drunk driver even.
3. Fiona Payne made the point of looking in roadworks excavations, and early on it was pointed out there was a problem with manhole covers on the streets.
4. If there was someone planning to kidnap a child they would be very pleased if the child came to them.
So if you thought of an intruder, it is possible for the child to be abducted without the need for the break in.
5. Drowning in the pool was a possibility.
6. Some unexplained sudden death as in choking or asthma attack.
7. Tripping and banging one's head, or falling down steps.
And many more that I can't think of just now. But I think you could see at every situation it is possible for someone to remove the dead or living child from the scene without informing another person.
-
So in each instance, what happened to the body that wandered out the apartment to allow it never to be located?
Well with all the people wandering around, the chances of discovery must have been significant.
-
Well with all the people wandering around, the chances of discovery must have been significant.
Whichever scenario you believe happened the same observation applies.
-
Whichever scenario you believe happened the same observation applies.
Mr Smith & wife believed they saw Gerry, & need we recount how the bin scenario would have made discovery of a body quite difficult initially & eventually nigh on impossible?
-
What observation? There has never been any body to observe. If she woke up and innocently wandered out the apartment as Jim Gamble's theory predicts, is it really logical to believe she disposed of her own body in a manner in which it has never been found?
Why don't you read my post in the context of the post I was replying to? then all should become clear.
-
Mr Smith & wife believed they saw Gerry, & need we recount how the bin scenario would have made discovery of a body quite difficult initially & eventually nigh on impossible?
You seem to be agreeing with my statement, so...what's your point again?
-
What observation? There has never been any body to observe. If she woke up and innocently wandered out the apartment as Jim Gamble's theory predicts, is it really logical to believe she disposed of her own body in a manner in which it has never been found?
There was a case in the UK where a man was able to 'dispose' of his own body in a manner which defeated extensive police searches.
There is a great deal of undeveloped, rough terrain in and around Luz. I have only a thumbnail sketch of how well that was searched.
Purely accidental death and inability to find a body cannot be ruled out.
That's why I am interested in cases of cadaver decomposition. It appears that nothing occurs in the decomposition process, in a woke and wandered scenario, to alert people that a cadaver is there.
-
If Maddie woke and wandered... What did Eddie alert to in the apartment
-
If that's your reply to my question that's fair enough with me. But whether the same scenario applies or not doesn't explain the lack of a body in the woke and wandered theory, does it?
So you think Jim Gamble's woke and wandered theory is garbage? I agree. The woke and wandered theory without a body is garbage, but it's not my garbage, it's Jim Gambles.
I don’t believe anyone is foolish enough to suggest that Madeleine disposed of her own body, that was the bit I was referring to as garbage. It is technically possible that she woke and wandered and was taken outside of the apartment, though I think this is highly unlikely owing to the fact that the window and shutter were open. And before you say it, there is no logic in opening a window and shutter in order to stage an abduction before you have even ascertained whether your child is wandering around the block somewhere, nor is there any logic in staging an abduction by opening shutters and window and closing them again before the police arrive.
-
Where is her body if she woke and wandered? VS agrees with me that the idea that she disposed of her own body is garbage, so where is it?
I dont particularly see woke and wandered as likely....the point im making is woke and wandered rubbishes the cadaver alerts.....i think they are rubbish
-
Don't you think with the level of Portuguese resources thrown at the search, the authorities would have found Madeline's body after all this time? I agree with VS, the idea that Madeleine could have disposed of herself as garbage.
The only level of Portuguese Portuguese police resources deployed in a woke and wandered scenario is in Mark Harrison's report.
I would not be confident that rules out accidental death + body not discovered, as in the UK case.
-
I dont particularly see woke and wandered as likely....the point im making is woke and wandered rubbishes the cadaver alerts.....i think they are rubbish
Some sceptics appear to believe that the McCanns found Madeleine after she wandered off, fell off the balcony, into the swimming pool or down a hole and brought her body back to the apartment prior to hiding it. The only problem with this theory is that she would have needed to have woke, wandered, died and been found before the McCanns left the apartment in order for there to be time for cadaver odour to have developed and that scenario is just plain illogical.
-
The Child Catcher just happened by as Maddie wandered out.
He lured her away with lollipops & treacle tart, then a burglar came by, opening the window & shutters. Then later, the rubbish cadaver dog was barking up the wrong tree.
You have to believe in a whole heap of garbage to accept the woke & wandered or abduction scenarios.
-
Some sceptics appear to believe that the McCanns found Madeleine after she wandered off, fell off the balcony, into the swimming pool or down a hole and brought her body back to the apartment prior to hiding it. The only problem with this theory is that she would have needed to have woke, wandered, died and been found before the McCanns left the apartment in order for there to be time for cadaver odour to have developed and that scenario is just plain illogical.
I agree, it sounds like nonsense.
-
The Child Catcher just happened by as Maddie wandered out.
He lured her away with lollipops & treacle tart, then a burglar came by, opening the window & shutters. Then later, the rubbish cadaver dog was barking up the wrong tree.
You have to believe in a whole heap of garbage to accept the woke & wandered or abduction scenarios.
no time for cadaver odour to develop if maddie was removed from the apartment before 10...so dogs barking up the wrong tree..
-
I dont particularly see woke and wandered as likely....the point im making is woke and wandered rubbishes the cadaver alerts.....i think they are rubbish
It doesn't.
-
The Child Catcher just happened by as Maddie wandered out.
He lured her away with lollipops & treacle tart, then a burglar came by, opening the window & shutters. Then later, the rubbish cadaver dog was barking up the wrong tree.
You have to believe in a whole heap of garbage to accept the woke & wandered or abduction scenarios.
No you don’t for the abduction theory but you sure do for parents covering up accidental death and woke and wandered IMO.
-
It doesn't.
yes it does...how can the dogs alert to a cadaver....if maddie woke and wandered and there ahs never been another death in the apartment
-
Have a look at the PJ File and ask yourself one question. Was the TV in 5A capable of picking up the football played on 3 May?
Not being picky.
That strikes me as an enigma.
Please supply a direct quote from anyone claiming to have watched a football match in apartment 5A on 3rd May 2007, thank you
-
In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.
Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html
-
The podcast doesn't support the idea of accidental death and the body not being discovered, and I think the idea that a barefooted child could have left the village of PDL without getting spotted is ridiculous. People accidentally dispose of their bodies in mid winter on the Scottish mountains, but just as in your UK case, they always find them in the end and that's without anywhere near the resources listed in Mark Harrison's report. You won't get more undeveloped, rougher, remoter terrain than in the Scottish mountains but accidental deaths always turn up in the end, unless you're Suzanne Piley.
I haven't watched any of the podcasts, so I am not in a position to debate any of them.
If you ever get the urge to visit Luz, I'll be happy to show you around the large areas of land that fit woke and wandered.
Bring some stout walking boots. Glaswegians may be tough, but the going will be rough.
-
Please supply a direct quote from anyone claiming to have watched a football match in apartment 5A on 3rd May 2007, thank you
Jane Tanner.
".....Kate had been moaning that you'd been gone a long time watching the football"
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=104
-
Have a look at the PJ File and ask yourself one question. Was the TV in 5A capable of picking up the football played on 3 May?
Not being picky.
That strikes me as an enigma.
RTP showed the UEFA (Europa) Cup in 2007. Is that station cable or satellite?
-
Jane Tanner.
".....Kate had been moaning that you'd been gone a long time watching the football"
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=104
Thank you ... musing such as that made by Jane is precisely what I did not request.
To reiterate ...
I asked for a direct quote from anyone who claimed to have watched a football match in apartment 5A.
-
RTP showed the UEFA (Europa) Cup in 2007. Is that station cable or satellite?
No, it’s a national TV station. There was a UEFA semi final on that night.
-
In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.
Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html
What that shows is that the dogs are, accurate with freshly contaminated carpet squares
-
In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.
Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html
Any similar trials for 2+ months post contamination?
-
Thank you ... musing such as that made by Jane is precisely what I did not request.
To reiterate ...
I asked for a direct quote from anyone who claimed to have watched a football match in apartment 5A.
Kate moaned that Gerry was gone along time watching football.
That much is indisputable since Jane Tanner is a perfectly reliable witness.
-
Kate moaned that Gerry was gone along time watching football.
That much is indisputable since Jane Tanner is a perfectly reliable witness.
Why would Kate complain to her friend about her husband’s prolonged absence iif your scenario is correct?
-
Why would Kate complain to her friend about her husband’s prolonged absence iif your scenario is correct?
Making an innocent excuse for his prolonged absence imo.
-
Any similar trials for 2+ months post contamination?
There was a trial mentioned here by misty... Where handlers were told to search for a contaminated spot where no contamination was present... I believe all the handlers were fooled and alerted... Perhaps misty has the details
-
No, it’s a national TV station. There was a UEFA semi final on that night.
Liverpool v Chelsea
-
RTP showed the UEFA (Europa) Cup in 2007. Is that station cable or satellite?
Do you know if that was the semis or the final?
AFAIK, RTP would have been picked up in 2007 mainly via a terrestrial 'fishbone' aerial.
By the way, your point is in the incredibly important category, and I have been trying to crack it for ages.
I am not asking for a cite, but if you have more information, I will happy to explain further.
*&(+(+
-
Making an innocent excuse for his prolonged absence imo.
By drawing attention to it in the first place? Strange. So what do you think he was really doing?
-
Liverpool v Chelsea
That was Champions League, not Europa Cup.
-
That was Champions League, not Europa Cup.
Yes, it was 3 Spanish teams and one other in the semis, can’t remember the names.
-
That was Champions League, not Europa Cup.
Which day? Wednesday or Thursday?
-
By drawing attention to it in the first place? Strange. So what do you think he was really doing?
Doing a really, really long wee & then,for several minutes, gazing at his beautiful daughter who lay under or on top of the covers (whichever you want to believe).
-
Do you know if that was the semis or the final?
AFAIK, RTP would have been picked up in 2007 mainly via a terrestrial 'fishbone' aerial.
By the way, your point is in the incredibly important category, and I have been trying to crack it for ages.
I am not asking for a cite, but if you have more information, I will happy to explain further.
*&(+(+
It was semi-finals 2nd leg, Espanyol v Werder Bremen & Osasuna v Sevilla, so not exactly high on UK interest.
According to Wiki, RTP showed Europa League in 2007 & also had radio rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTP_Desporto
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%9307_UEFA_Cup#Semi-finals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%9307_UEFA_Cup#Semi-finals)
-
Which day? Wednesday or Thursday?
Thursday 3rd May
Espanyol Spain 5–1 Germany Werder Bremen 3–0 2–1
Osasuna Spain 1–2 Spain Sevilla
-
Doing a really, really long wee & then,for several minutes, gazing at his beautiful daughter who lay under or on top of the covers (whichever you want to believe).
From the contempt in your post it’s clear you don’t believe a word of it. So what do you think he was really doing?
-
Which day? Wednesday or Thursday?
Liverpool 1 Chelsea 0 was on Tuesday May 1st.
-
Liverpool 1 Chelsea 0 was on Tuesday May 1st.
Good times.
-
There was a trial mentioned here by misty... Where handlers were told to search for a contaminated spot where no contamination was present... I believe all the handlers were fooled and alerted... Perhaps misty has the details
There was this trial https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/ but it's not the one I recall posting.
Brietta may have the right link as I can't find it using Search facility & it's not in my bookmarks.
-
Good times.
We lost in the final that year....better times now. ?{)(**
-
We lost in the final that year....better times now. ?{)(**
Indeed.
-
The Child Catcher just happened by as Maddie wandered out.
He lured her away with lollipops & treacle tart, then a burglar came by, opening the window & shutters. Then later, the rubbish cadaver dog was barking up the wrong tree.
You have to believe in a whole heap of garbage to accept the woke & wandered or abduction scenarios.
Not at all. IMO the child woke up and made her way outside where she met with an accident and was carried off from the scene and hidden. As for the alleged open shutter and window, nobody knows if that even happened.
-
It was semi-finals 2nd leg, Espanyol v Werder Bremen & Osasuna v Sevilla, so not exactly high on UK interest.
According to Wiki, RTP showed Europa League in 2007 & also had radio rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTP_Desporto
OK.
I know that one of the matches was shown on Sky. I can't remember which one. That would obviously have been in English. I cannot prove that Martin and Peter Smith went to Kelly's that night to watch the tail end of a match, but it is a potential explanation.
It also seems that the Smiths remained in Kelly's long enough to catch up on the result of the other game, before walking back home. If so, it cements the timings in the Smith statements.
If a semi-final was broadcast on RTP, it would have been in Portuguese. That is relevant to the 3 'burglars' made arguidos of July 2014, as the most basic explanation for phone calls is football.
Finally Euclides Monteiro, or his mobile, appears to have been in Luz on 3 May. There are 2 prime Portuguese locations. Football in Portuguese. I have not yet ruled out the 'working mens' club in Portelas, a 3rd possibility.
-
no time for cadaver odour to develop if maddie was removed from the apartment before 10...so dogs barking up the wrong tree..
Not necessarily. We know that at least one person associated with 5a died in hospital. Could be that items associated with him or even ashes were stored in that apartment. Fact is that the cadaver dog did find signs of cadaver residue in 5a and moreover it could very well have had nothing whatsoever to do with Maddie. The dog alerts can't be ignored but imo they are merely coincidental and nothing more.
-
Not necessarily. We know that at least one person associated with 5a died in hospital. Could be that items associated with him or even ashes were stored in that apartment. Fact is that the cadaver dog did find signs of cadaver residue in 5a and moreover it could very well have had nothing whatsoever to do with Maddie. The dog alerts can't be ignored but imo they are merely coincidental and nothing more.
Yeh, but what's the chances? Woke and wandered, died in an accident.......and someone separate died in a holiday apartment?
-
Not necessarily. We know that at least one person associated with 5a died in hospital. Could be that items associated with him or even ashes were stored in that apartment. Fact is that the cadaver dog did find signs of cadaver residue in that apartment, it could very well have nothing whatsoever to do with Maddie.
absolutely...so its a reasonable suggestion that there never was a cadaver in 5a...yet almeida said the alerts were the main evidence aggainst the mccanns...so he was barking up the wrong tree
-
OK.
I know that one of the matches was shown on Sky. I can't remember which one. That would obviously have been in English. I cannot prove that Martin and Peter Smith went to Kelly's that night to watch the tail end of a match, but it is a potential explanation.
It also seems that the Smiths remained in Kelly's long enough to catch up on the result of the other game, before walking back home. If so, it cements the timings in the Smith statements.
If a semi-final was broadcast on RTP, it would have been in Portuguese. That is relevant to the 3 'burglars' made arguidos of July 2014, as the most basic explanation for phone calls is football.
Finally Euclides Monteiro, or his mobile, appears to have been in Luz on 3 May. There are 2 prime Portuguese locations. Football in Portuguese. I have not yet ruled out the 'working mens' club in Portelas, a 3rd possibility.
*%87
-
So in each instance, what happened to the body that wandered out the apartment to allow it never to be located?
Well it can be anything from anyone taking some remedial action after finding the child in the wrong place. Just like Goncalo's theory for what happened after a theoretical accident inside the apartment.
But here it is on the outside so the scope of who takes the remedial action is much broader. The suggestions are only possibilities, the investigating police forces would have to tick off all the possibilities.
"1. Being stuck in the lift in block 5 is one scenario Misty raised, and I had noted all along no one ever said they looked in the lift let alone the lift shaft. (Owner of the building if the lift was faulty and they felt liable)
2. Beyond that there is the possibility of being run over by a car, a drunk driver even. (
Driver of the car and they felt liable)
3. Fiona Payne made the point of looking in roadworks excavations, and early on it was pointed out there was a problem with manhole covers on the streets. (Contractor doing the excavation that was faulty and they felt liable)
4. If there was someone planning to kidnap a child they would be very pleased if the child came to them.
So if you thought of an intruder, it is possible for the child to be abducted without the need for the break in. the kidnapper
5. Drowning in the pool was a possibility. (Owner of the pool, if the pool was not fenced and they felt liable)
6. Some unexplained sudden death as in choking or asthma attack.
7. Tripping and banging one's head, or falling down steps." (Owner of the steps if the steps were not railed adequately and they felt liable)
-
Not necessarily. We know that at least one person associated with 5a died in hospital. Could be that items associated with him or even ashes were stored in that apartment. Fact is that the cadaver dog did find signs of cadaver residue in that apartment, it could very well have nothing whatsoever to do with Maddie.
it is not a fact that the dog found signs of cadaver residue...not a fact at all...cite required...its apossibility
-
Whichever scenario you believe happened the same observation applies.
No IMO there are always multiple possibilities at each scenario.
-
Which as you kindly point out, could be an indication that an alive Madeleine McCann never woke and wandered anywhere on the evening of May 3rd. It couldn't have been anybody else's cadaver could it, if no dead bodies had ever been in the apartment?
thers no confirmation of an alert to cadaver
-
Which as you kindly point out, could be an indication that an alive Madeleine McCann never woke and wandered anywhere on the evening of May 3rd. It couldn't have been anybody else's cadaver could it, if no dead bodies had ever been in the apartment?
To a casual observer it would be pretty compelling. It's just that all I hear is Davel barking '....DOGS! NO CADAVER! DOGS!'.
-
Mr Smith & wife believed they saw Gerry, & need we recount how the bin scenario would have made discovery of a body quite difficult initially & eventually nigh on impossible?
Was there a bin scenario? Maybe if the child climbed into a bin and was asleep when the rubbish collectors picked up the bin. I know this has happened to homeless individuals from time to time. The compactor truck being that noisy the driver is unaware he has just loaded a living person into the bin on the truck and the compactor kills the victim. Horrible thought but it happens.
-
thers no confirmation of an alert to cadaver
Yer see?
Course it was.
-
Yeh, but what's the chances? Woke and wandered, died in an accident.......and someone separate died in a holiday apartment?
Nobody died in 5a that we know of but these things happen in real life. A previous owner of 5a died in hospital so cadaver odour could very well have been innocently brought back to the property. Contamination by cadaver odour is a fact of life, we were even told that the reason the cadaver dog alerted to some of Kate McCann's clothing was because she was a GP and routinely encountered dead bodies. Thus her contaminated clothing since cadaver odour cannot be washed away.
-
If Maddie woke and wandered... What did Eddie alert to in the apartment
That is a separate question.
-
To a casual observer it would be pretty compelling. It's just that all I hear is Davel barking '....DOGS! NO CADAVER! DOGS!'.
the casual observer probably believes such rubbish as....solved 200 cases....100% record...neither of which is true..
are you aware of the dogs real track record
-
the casu observer probably believes such rubbish as....solved 200 cases....100% record...neither of which is true..
are you aware of the dogs real track record
You're too easy.....
-
There is no alive Madeleine McCann as far as I'm aware to confirm that it wasn't her cadaver the dog was alerting to.
perhaps it was lord lucans...no confirmation it wasnt
-
You're too easy.....
I can back up everything i say with corroborated facts....its easy.
-
I can back up everything i say with corroborated facts....its easy
Yeh I know, you're the best.
-
Yeh I know, you're the best.
better than all the rest...resistence is futile
-
That is a separate question.
it seems a question many want to discuss...including angelo
-
I will be issuing warnings if the sniping continues...be warned!!
-
Kate moaned that Gerry was gone along time watching football.
That much is indisputable since Jane Tanner is a perfectly reliable witness.
Jim Clemente finds Jane a more reliable witness than the Smiths. (Cite in the podcast somewhere)
-
From the contempt in your post it’s clear you don’t believe a word of it. So what do you think he was really doing?
No one knows and if it was answered it would be pure speculation.
-
Yeh, but what's the chances? Woke and wandered, died in an accident.......and someone separate died in a holiday apartment?
That must happen on a regular basis.
-
Perhaps it was Lord Lucan's DNA in the hire car too. Still, it appeared to be a partial match to the missing child.
it may well ahve been a similar amtch to alot of others too
-
So what have I got from all of this?
1, There was nothing stopping Madeleine from exiting the apartment if she woke up.
2. There are multiple ways an accident could have happened to her while she was trying to make her way to the Tapas.
3. Someone for some reason could have removed her body (dead or still alive) probably before the search got underway (like the Smith sighting carting a child further away from the OC).
4. There needs to be an explanation for the open window and raised shutters.
5. There needs to be an explanation as to why the dogs alerted.
-
That's not quite what the report clearly states. We are not allowed to post that information, so don't ask me for a cite whatever you do.
of course you can quote lowes report
-
That's not quite what the report clearly states. We are not allowed to post that information, so don't ask me for a cite whatever you do.
Why are you not allowed to provide the cite?
-
Good question, not that I am going to expect an answer.
VS was asking you for an answer.
-
VS was asking you for an answer.
Do you know why CM isn’t allowed to give a cite for a quote from Lowe’s report stating Madeleine’s DNA was definitely found in the hire car?
-
CM said that's not quite what Lowe's report states. But has you know fine well, it states there appears to be a match to the missing child that makes it a real possibility that Madeleine's DNA was definitely in the hire car.
A definite maybe then which is not what I understood from the discussion earlier this evening.
-
Couldn't have put it better.
Hardly conclusive and hardly surprising, a verdict which leaves us none the wiser.
-
Hardly conclusive at the moment, but indicative all the same. Times are a changing in the world of hardly conclusive DNA samples. I'm confident the new technology will be able to answer the question that Mr Lowe couldn't at the time. If that technology exists now, it's going to have to be answered IMO sooner or later. That's if is hasn't been answered already.
An incomplete profile will always be incomplete, no matter what technology is used.
-
Please supply a direct quote from anyone claiming to have watched a football match in apartment 5A on 3rd May 2007, thank you
Kate was the source so ask her.
He went off to his check and he was longer than a bit, because I can remember Kate sort of saying ‘Oh bet he’s put the footy on’, because I think there was a football match that night and she sort of said ‘Oh I think he’s probably’, erm, you know, ‘got side tracked and put the telly on and catch up on the score’
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
Do you know why CM isn’t allowed to give a cite for a quote from Lowe’s report stating Madeleine’s DNA was definitely found in the hire car?
No I don't except that I expect that someone has misunderstood the result. If what you are saying is definitely wrong a moderator could delete it.
-
One of the more interesting podcasts so far imo. They’re currently discussing the argument that it’s unlikely the parents could have been so chilled whilst they were supposedly involved in a cover up whilst eating at the Tapas. Interesting viewpoints.
-
One of the more interesting podcasts so far imo. They’re currently discussing the argument that it’s unlikely the parents could have been so chilled whilst they were supposedly involved in a cover up whilst eating at the Tapas. Interesting viewpoints.
I tend to agree with your view, although I've yet to listen to the last podcast. Maybe it's because 2 of the 3 presenters have vast experience in Law Enforcement/criminal investigation & opinions seem unbiased in the main.
As an aside, last night I watched a documentary on the Glyn Razzell case (a body-less murder conviction) & concluded from it that he was guilty based on his refusal to take a polygraph & the alleged victim's blood found in the boot of a car he'd used on the day Linda went missing. However, upon researching further, I've discovered that important pointers to Glyn's innocence were omitted from the programme. Today I'm not so sure he was guilty of murder & a miscarriage of justice may well have occurred.
-
I tend to agree with your view, although I've yet to listen to the last podcast. Maybe it's because 2 of the 3 presenters have vast experience in Law Enforcement/criminal investigation & opinions seem unbiased in the main.
As an aside, last night I watched a documentary on the Glyn Razzell case (a body-less murder conviction) & concluded from it that he was guilty based on his refusal to take a polygraph & the alleged victim's blood found in the boot of a car he'd used on the day Linda went missing. However, upon researching further, I've discovered that important pointers to Glyn's innocence were omitted from the programme. Today I'm not so sure he was guilty of murder & a miscarriage of justice may well have occurred.
There are several episodes of the podcast and it takes a while to go through them all.
Did they use the word "chilled" as in "They’re currently discussing the argument that it’s unlikely the parents could have been so chilled whilst they were supposedly involved in a cover up whilst eating at the Tapas"?
-
1. So the owner of the building found Madeleine dead in the lift and decided to dispose of her body?
2. She woke and wandered and was murdered by a drunk driver who disposed of her body?
3. Madeleine fell down a man hole and the contractor was in the vicinity and happened to find her and dispose of her body?
4. Madeleine went to meet the abductors?
5. She drowned in the pool and the owner of the pool felt liable and decided to dispose of her body?
6. Wouldn't Kate or Gerry have observed a dead Madeleine if their daughter had choke to death when they went into the apartment? Nor is it exactly waking and wandering.
7. Just assuming the owners of the inadequate rail were hanging around the tapas between 9 and 10 o'clock, did they discover her dead and decide to dispose of her body?
These are just some of the possible eventualities that could have been the fate of Madeleine.
As you pointed out: "6. Wouldn't Kate or Gerry have observed a dead Madeleine if their daughter had choke to death when they went into the apartment? Nor is it exactly waking and wandering."
OK choking could occur outside as well as inside the apartment. Woke wander, choke, taken to doctors, recovered, person changed their mind and abducted her.
As you pointed out: "7. Just assuming the owners of the inadequate rail were hanging around the tapas between 9 and 10 o'clock, did they discover her dead and decide to dispose of her body?"
That is possible, they may have been out walking and returned home. Nothing unusual about that.
-
https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-profile
Join Jim Clemente (former FBI profiler), Laura Richards (formerly of New Scotland Yards, Founder and Director of Paladin, National Stalking Advocacy Service) and Lisa Zambetti (Casting director for CBS' Criminal Minds) as they profile behavior from real criminal cases.
From episode 182 to 187 the group discuss the McCann case.
Episode 182 - The Disappearance Of Madeleine McCann
Episode 183 - Victimology and Timeline: The Disappearance Of Madeleine McCann
Episode 184: Victimology and The Investigation - Madeleine McCann
Episode 185 - Breaking It Down: Madeleine McCann
Episode 186: Linkage Analysis - Madeleine McCann
Episode 187 - Clearing the Ground From Under Your Feet: Madeleine McCann
https://player.fm/series/real-crime-profile-1437927/episode-186-linkage-analysis-madeleine-mccann
-
An incomplete profile will always be incomplete, no matter what technology is used.
There were 15 out of Madeleine's 19 DNA ccmponemts. There were, however, 37 compoments altogether. That, to ne suggests that 22 of them couldn't be hers. He then goes on to cast doubt on the 15 components too. Yes they match her profile, but that doesn't mean they belong to her because they may not.
The problem is clearly stated;
It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
That's the problem which Perlin claims he can solve.
-
There were 15 out of Madeleine's 19 DNA ccmponemts. There were, however, 37 compoments altogether. That, to ne suggests that 22 of them couldn't be hers. He then goes on to cast doubt on the 15 components too. Yes they match her profile, but that doesn't mean they belong to her because they may not.
The problem is clearly stated;
It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
That's the problem which Perlin claims he can solve.
If that is the case why do you think thePJ have not taken up his offer
-
If that is the case why do you think thePJ have not taken up his offer
Why would they be expected to,what's not to say they( PJ) or SY aren't up to speed with the advancements in forensics and are already on it,with a supposed joint investigation imo declaring where they are at with it isn't and won't be up for discussion with third parties.
-
Why would they be expected to,what's not to say they( PJ) or SY aren't up to speed with the advancements in forensics and are already on it,with a supposed joint investigation imo declaring where they are at with it isn't and won't be up for discussion with third parties.
Agreed
-
If that is the case why do you think thePJ have not taken up his offer
I don't know whether the PJ have the information he needs for his analysis. Do you?
-
I don't know whether the PJ have the information he needs for his analysis. Do you?
It's their investigation so why wouldnt they have access to it.. They surely would
-
There were 15 out of Madeleine's 19 DNA ccmponemts. There were, however, 37 compoments altogether. That, to ne suggests that 22 of them couldn't be hers. He then goes on to cast doubt on the 15 components too. Yes they match her profile, but that doesn't mean they belong to her because they may not.
The problem is clearly stated;
It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
That's the problem which Perlin claims he can solve.
Is this the “definitely maybe” cite that Monkey was talking about yesterday but claimed he was not allowed to post? In which case I would say it’s 99% maybe and 1% definitely.
-
It's their investigation so why wouldnt they have access to it.. They surely would
I don't know how the FSS worked. Did they give their customers everything they had, or just the results? The fact that someone withdrew the FSS records from the archives in 2012 suggests they only gave out their results.
I'm thinking of when you give your accounts to an accountant at the end of the year. They produce a profit and loss account and a balance sheet from what you give them, and they hand them over to you. They don't hand over their calculations, just the results.
-
Is this the “definitely maybe” cite that Monkey was talking about yesterday but claimed he was not allowed to post? In which case I would say it’s 99% maybe and 1% definitely.
As much as that for Definitely?
-
As much as that for Definitely?
Maybe I overstated that, sorry.
-
I don't know how the FSS worked. Did they give their customers everything they had, or just the results? The fact that someone withdrew the FSS records from the archives in 2012 suggests they only gave out their results.
I'm thinking of when you give your accounts to an accountant at the end of the year. They produce a profit and loss account and a balance sheet from what you give them, and they hand them over to you. They don't hand over their calculations, just the results.
If the figures are available to anyone they are, available to the PJ
-
Maybe I overstated that, sorry.
You guys, you crack me, so consistently, up.
-
As much as that for Definitely?
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to find a few of maddies cells in the boot of the car via transference
-
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to find a few of maddies cells in the boot of the car via transference
I would agree with that, we know that transfer of DNA is extremely easy luckily and that is why so many criminal cases have been solved and successful prosecuted using that technology.
-
Well it can be anything from anyone taking some remedial action after finding the child in the wrong place. Just like Goncalo's theory for what happened after a theoretical accident inside the apartment.
But here it is on the outside so the scope of who takes the remedial action is much broader. The suggestions are only possibilities, the investigating police forces would have to tick off all the possibilities.
"1. Being stuck in the lift in block 5 is one scenario Misty raised, and I had noted all along no one ever said they looked in the lift let alone the lift shaft. (Owner of the building if the lift was faulty and they felt liable)
2. Beyond that there is the possibility of being run over by a car, a drunk driver even. (
Driver of the car and they felt liable)
3. Fiona Payne made the point of looking in roadworks excavations, and early on it was pointed out there was a problem with manhole covers on the streets. (Contractor doing the excavation that was faulty and they felt liable)
4. If there was someone planning to kidnap a child they would be very pleased if the child came to them.
So if you thought of an intruder, it is possible for the child to be abducted without the need for the break in. the kidnapper
5. Drowning in the pool was a possibility. (Owner of the pool, if the pool was not fenced and they felt liable)
6. Some unexplained sudden death as in choking or asthma attack.
7. Tripping and banging one's head, or falling down steps." (Owner of the steps if the steps were not railed adequately and they felt liable)
I understand why there is so much resistance to the very simple woke and wandered and met with a fatal accident scenario, I get it really. Supporters know that should this scenario be proven, that blame will revert straight back to Maddie's parents. Some sceptics don't like it because it excuses direct parental involvement in the disappearance.
In most unexplained disappearances it is the simplest of explanations which often win through but are often initially overlooked. There is good evidence that Maddie walked out of that apartment and around the block provided by two experienced tracker dogs, the fact that her scent mysteriously stopped almost in the middle of the road is a very strong indicator of what happened imo.
-
I understand why there is so much resistance to the very simple woke and wandered and met with a fatal accident scenario, I get it really. Supporters know that should this scenario be proven, that blame will revert straight back to Maddie's parents. Some sceptics don't like it because it excuses direct parental involvement in the disappearance.
In most unexplained disappearances it is the simple explanations which often win through.
I don't see that at all... What effect would a wike and wandered solution have on amaral and his theiries
-
I understand why there is so much resistance to the very simple woke and wandered and met with a fatal accident scenario, I get it really. Supporters know that should this scenario be proven, that blame will revert straight back to Maddie's parents. Some sceptics don't like it because it excuses direct parental involvement in the disappearance.
In most unexplained disappearances it is the simple explanations which often win through.
I don't see that as a simple solution.
It depends on Madeleine waking
AND getting out onto the street
AND a passing motorist knocking her down
AND then deciding to abscond with body
-
If the figures are available to anyone they are, available to the PJ
Your evidence being......
-
I don't see that as a simple solution.
It depends on Madeleine waking
AND getting out onto the street
AND a passing motorist knocking her down
AND then deciding to abscond with body
All very simple processes. A driver stopping in a deserted street at night after hitting a child will be subject to several emotions such as shock, guilt and self preservation. What may have started out as an attempt to get medical help might well have ended in him deciding to hide the child's remains.
-
I understand why there is so much resistance to the very simple woke and wandered and met with a fatal accident scenario, I get it really. Supporters know that should this scenario be proven, that blame will revert straight back to Maddie's parents. Some sceptics don't like it because it excuses direct parental involvement in the disappearance.
In most unexplained disappearances it is the simple explanations which often win through.
This supporter would prefer this scenario to the alternative one of Madeleine being abducted by a paedophile, whether it reverts blame back to Madeleine's parents or not.
This scenario, although terrible would mean Madeleine's suffering would have been much, much less than the abduction/paedophile one.
-
I don't see that as a simple solution.
It depends on Madeleine waking
AND getting out onto the street
AND a passing motorist knocking her down
AND then deciding to abscond with body
I agree!
-
All very simple processes.
Individually, yes, but less so to bring them all together just at the right time.
-
Individually, yes, but less so to bring them all together just at the right time.
There's nothing complicated with a child getting out of an unlocked ground floor apartment and being run over in a dark street. It happens even in daylight.
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/02/24/6-year-old-boy-hit-car-dallas-dies/
-
I don't see that as a simple solution.
It depends on Madeleine waking
AND getting out onto the street
AND a passing motorist knocking her down
AND then deciding to abscond with body
That's what happened on The Missing. Someone who was drunk ran him over and took off with the body, although the body wasn't actually dead.
-
That's what happened on The Missing. Someone who was drunk ran him over and took off with the body, although the body wasn't actually dead.
Wasn't that fiction?
-
Your evidence being......
They have primacy... They simply have to ask... Why would they not be available to them
-
That's what happened on The Missing. Someone who was drunk ran him over and took off with the body, although the body wasn't actually dead.
And I suspect the writers of this series had one eye on the Maddie case.
-
I don't see that as a simple solution.
It depends on Madeleine waking
AND getting out onto the street
AND a passing motorist knocking her down
AND then deciding to abscond with body
That is all very possible IMO.
She seemed to wake most nights (Tues and Wednesday, and why not Thursday?).
The front door was unlocked from the inside (not deadlocked).
Cars past by the apartment.
Would he pick up a hit and run victim?
-
That is all very possible IMO.
She seemed to wake most nights (Tues and Wednesday, and why not Thursday?).
The front door was unlocked from the inside (not deadlocked).
Cars past by the apartment.
Would he pick up a hit and run victim?
Almost anything is POSSIBLE, It doesn't mean it actually happened.
One needs supporting evidence of such an event.
-
And I suspect the writers of this series had one eye on the Maddie case.
When writing fiction, one can make anything up to suit the plot.
-
When writing fiction, one can make anything up to suit the plot.
I tend to agree with that, Jassi, although most likely from a different perspective. ;)
-
Almost anything is POSSIBLE, It doesn't mean it actually happened.
One needs supporting evidence of such an event.
We have supporting evidence that she went out and crossed the road then disappeared. I imagine she was hit in the middle of the road and was thrown towards the lamppost where the scent stops. As she was barefooted on this occasion the dogs would have been able to follow a positive scent.
-
When writing fiction, one can make anything up to suit the plot.
I can see echoes of the Maddie case throughout their plot.
-
We have supporting evidence that she went out and crossed the road then disappeared. I imagine she was hit in the middle of the road and was thrown towards the lamppost where the scent stops. As she was barefooted on this occasion the dogs would have been able to follow a positive scent.
The sniffer dogs followed a scent.
That scent did not have a time -tag so could have been made at any time during the previous day or two.
It is merely an assumption that it relates to that night.
IMO
-
I can see echoes of the Maddie case throughout their plot.
Maybe so.
Many hollywood movies are based on a true event, but bear little resemblance to reality.
Fiction molds reality into drama.
-
They have primacy... They simply have to ask... Why would they not be available to them
I don't know which information Perlin needs, who it belongs to or where it is, and neither do you imo.
-
I don't know which information Perlin needs, who it belongs to or where it is, and neither do you imo.
I think you are amking a feeble attempt to show some sort of conspiracy
-
The sniffer dogs followed a scent.
That scent did not have a time -tag so could have been made at any time during the previous day or two.
It is merely an assumption that it relates to that night.
IMO
Can you explain why the scent stopped DEAD at the lamppost?
I will also add the possibility that an awake Maddie heard her father chatting with Jez Wilkins outside and so determined to follow this time instead of staying in her bedroom crying. Kate McCann has already told us that Maddie would go out the front door and tear off down the walkway well ahead of the rest of them so she knew where she was going.
-
Wasn't that fiction?
Yes it was. But so is a lot of so called evidence against The McCanns.
However, someone thought of the possibility.
-
And I suspect the writers of this series had one eye on the Maddie case.
Quite possibly. But you have to admit that it could happen.
-
You think it's reasonable to expect a dog only trained to detect human blood to find a few cells of Madeleine's in the boot of the car? I thought the child could never have been in the hire car, so they weren't the results I was expecting.
who says the dog alerted to blood from madeleine...the whole thing is an uncertainty...in jersey cocnut was found where the dog alerted...we dont know for certain that what was recovered was waht was alerted to
-
I think you are amking a feeble attempt to show some sort of conspiracy
Well you're wrong. I have no idea whether every scrap of the FSS's information was handed to any police force. If Mark Saunokonoko is correct some information was archived at some point and withdrawn in 2012. I don't know who would be allowed access and why they needed it. Perhaps you know?
-
Kate was the source so ask her.
He went off to his check and he was longer than a bit, because I can remember Kate sort of saying ‘Oh bet he’s put the footy on’, because I think there was a football match that night and she sort of said ‘Oh I think he’s probably’, erm, you know, ‘got side tracked and put the telly on and catch up on the score’
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Well we all know why he was late coming back, don't we?
He was chatting with Jez
Simples
-
I'm not talking about coconuts in Jersey, I'm talking about the blood dog in the boot of the hire car in Portugal.
when you can prove th dog alerted to the residue collected you will have some kind of case..you never will be able to prove that
-
I don't like it because it requires an unsecured apartment.
GM May 4th "about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was ALWAYS unlocked."
GM May 4th "In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective KEY, the door being LOCKED."
GM May 4th At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key
He clearly remembered and admitted on May 4th that the glass sliding door that was always left unlocked but yet here he is telling the old bill that both him and his wife walked the long way round and entered via a locked front door. I know he was going through a traumatic episode in his life but I refuse to accept given what he could remember that he forgot he had entered via the very same door as he claims Matthew used.
I suspect that it was an attempt to mitigate the furore which they expected had it been known that they had left three young children in an unlocked apartment while they went out socialising.
-
But we will be able to prove who the DNA came from. One step at a time.
will he....I doubt he will be able to as both parents used the car...has he said he can prove anything
-
Well you're wrong. I have no idea whether every scrap of the FSS's information was handed to any police force. If Mark Saunokonoko is correct some information was archived at some point and withdrawn in 2012. I don't know who would be allowed access and why they needed it. Perhaps you know?
no...i think you are still makig a feeble attempt to muddy the waters
-
I fail to see how he could have thought he was mitigating anything, given he admitted to the police that they had left the patio door unlocked a few paragraphs earlier. The unsecured patio door that he alleges he forgot he used is the most vital component of the entire abduction narrative. Without it, there'd be no abduction narrative to peddle. The fact he told police he entered a locked front door less than 24 hours after discovering his daughter missing, leads me to believe he DID enter a locked front door think every other 'responsible' parent who was abandoning their children would do IMO.
depends if the statement is accurate...when you can prove it is...you might have a case
-
I fail to see how he could have thought he was mitigating anything, given he admitted to the police that they had left the patio door unlocked a few paragraphs earlier. The unsecured patio door that he alleges he forgot he used is the most vital component of the entire abduction narrative. Without it, there'd be no abduction narrative to peddle. The fact he told police he entered a locked front door less than 24 hours after discovering his daughter missing, leads me to believe he DID enter a locked front door think every other 'responsible' parent who was abandoning their children would do IMO.
To me, that would imply that the patio door wasn't unlocked either and that the story is a fiction.
Just my opinion ?{)(**
-
Almost anything is POSSIBLE, It doesn't mean it actually happened.
One needs supporting evidence of such an event.
Can crime happen that doesn't leave any clues?
-
To me, that would imply that the patio door wasn't unlocked either and that the story is a fiction.
Just my opinion ?{)(**
Allow me to use a Davel. "no...I think you are still making a feeble attempt to muddy the waters".
-
Can crime happen that doesn't leave any clues?
I'm not sure, but clues can certainly be missed, misinterpreted, or even ignored at times.
-
depends if the statement is accurate...when you can prove it is...you might have a case
GM admits in his second statement that he erred in his initial one wrt the means by which he entered the apartment at around 9pm. I believe we can take it that the statements are hunky dory on that basis.
-
GM admits in his second statement that he erred in his initial one wrt the means by which he entered the apartment at around 9pm. I believe we can take it that the statements are hunky dory on that basis.
Is that irony ?
-
no...i think you are still makig a feeble attempt to muddy the waters
Do you think repeating your unfounded opinion adds anything useful to the debate?
The FSS had it's own archives which, when it closed, were transferred to the Forensic Archive Lid. Although case files were archived by the FSS, they still belonged to the originating police force.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/publications/
In the McCann case the originating police force was Leicestershire. That suggests that if Leicestershire police didn't withdraw the evidence themselves, they should have been asked for their approval or, at the least, notified of it's withdrawal.
-
Do you think repeating your unfounded opinion adds anything useful to the debate?
The FSS had it's own archives which, when it closed, were transferred to the Forensic Archive Lid. Although case files were archived by the FSS, they still belonged to the originating police force.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/publications/
In the McCann case the originating police force was Leicestershire. That suggests that if Leicestershire police didn't withdraw the evidence themselves, they should have been asked for their approval or, at the least, notified of it's withdrawal.
Can you show that the PJ were not the originating force
-
Can you show that the PJ were not the originating force
Din't you know that? Well I never! Why did you think everything went to Prior first?
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
-
You guys, you crack me, so consistently, up.
Must be the way we tell them. 8(>((
-
I understand why there is so much resistance to the very simple woke and wandered and met with a fatal accident scenario, I get it really. Supporters know that should this scenario be proven, that blame will revert straight back to Maddie's parents. Some sceptics don't like it because it excuses direct parental involvement in the disappearance.
In most unexplained disappearances it is the simplest of explanations which often win through but are often initially overlooked. There is good evidence that Maddie walked out of that apartment and around the block provided by two experienced tracker dogs, the fact that her scent mysteriously stopped almost in the middle of the road is a very strong indicator of what happened imo.
that really is rubbish of the highest order if you don’t mind me saying. Why would blame revert straight back to the parents and not the b........ who ran her over and put her in his or her car to hide the body?
-
For some strange reason, Lee Rainbow certainly thought the contradictions in Gerry McCann's statements were accurate when he wrote his conclusions.
No he didnt
Myth... Imo
Do you have a record of his, statement
-
Din't you know that? Well I never! Why did you think everything went to Prior first?
Client: Leicestershire Police, New Parks
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Leicester police would be the intermediary
-
GM admits in his second statement that he erred in his initial one wrt the means by which he entered the apartment at around 9pm. I believe we can take it that the statements are hunky dory on that basis.
I don't think he does... He says he wishes to correct a mistake.... Doesn't say who's mistake it was
-
I would agree with that, we know that transfer of DNA is extremely easy luckily and that is why so many criminal cases have been solved and successful prosecuted using that technology.
Do you think this is all normal? DNA, an open boot and hairs matching hers in appearance.
Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A_L_PALMER.htm
-
Do you really think the police in the UK gave Lee Rainbow witness statements to work on that were NOT accurate? Excusing the fact that Gerry signed to their accuracy at the time.
Mistakes on witness statements are usually called lies. At the end you get a chance to rectify anything.
A few minor bits and bobs, meh, nobody cares and accounts for human recall reliability; differing recall of fundamentals......all the alarms go off in a room somewhere.
-
Mistakes on witness statements are usually called lies. At the end you get a chance to rectify anything.
A few minor bits and bobs, meh, nobody cares and accounts for human recall reliability; differing recall of fundamentals......all the alarms go off in a room somewhere.
IMO, no alarm bells as yet ringing in the rooms of both current investigations?
-
IMO, no alarm bells as yet ringing in the rooms of both current investigations?
How do you know ?
-
IMO, no alarm bells as yet ringing in the rooms of both current investigations?
The office of the PJ lit up like Las Vegas strip in the initial investigation.
-
Mistakes on witness statements are usually called lies. At the end you get a chance to rectify anything.
A few minor bits and bobs, meh, nobody cares and accounts for human recall reliability; differing recall of fundamentals......all the alarms go off in a room somewhere.
Not when it's written in a language you don't understand
-
How do you know ?
I did say as yet.
It's taking them a while to see all these discrepancies or perhaps they have.
-
IMO, no alarm bells ringing in the room of Jimmy the abductor either, is there?
I don't know the name of Madeleine's abductor,IMO.
I doubt the name is Jimmy.
I do hope alarm bells are not ringing in his/her/ their room.
-
I did say as yet.
It's taking them a while to see all these discrepancies or perhaps they have.
To be fair it’s taking them a while to do anything....and it appears they are getting another £300,000 funding. I’m sure the parents are delighted. Looking forward to their thank you post on their Facebook page.
-
The office of the PJ lit up like Las Vegas strip in the initial investigation.
So did the lights go out?
-
To be fair it’s taking them a while to do anything....and it appears they are getting another £300,000 funding. I’m sure the parents are delighted. Looking forward to their thank you post on their Facebook page.
To be fair Facebook has become so ....last year's news!
So many of friends and family can't be bothered with it any more.
Perhaps Madeleine's parents find a more private and more sincere way of expressing their gratitude.
Great news about the extra funding.
Thank you for that information.
-
To be fair Facebook has become so ....last year's news!
So many of friends and family can't be bothered with it any more.
Perhaps Madeleine's parents find a more private and more sincere way of expressing their gratitude.
Great news about the extra funding.
Thank you for that information.
My pleasure Erngath. Good new indeed...though not, I suspect to the parents of other ‘lost’ children.
-
To be fair it’s taking them a while to do anything....and it appears they are getting another £300,000 funding. I’m sure the parents are delighted. Looking forward to their thank you post on their Facebook page.
I find it really creepy and odd how closely you seem to monitor their facebook page, seeing as how much contempt you have for them. I never look at it so why do you? I understand they won’t be thanking the police, but instead quivering in their boots as this £300k is the final push to get the last piece of the jigsaw before they get arrested and charged. @)(++(*
-
you might have two likes from others who dont understand but im fairly certain none of those witness stateents can be used aginst him...arguido rights...miranda...under caution...applies
-
you might have two likes from others who dont understand but im fairly certain none of those witness stateents can be used aginst him...arguido rights...miranda...under caution...applies
Both likes were from Cheeky Monkey. How does that work then?
-
My pleasure Erngath. Good new indeed...though not, I suspect to the parents of other ‘lost’ children.
All missing children's cases should be kept open and investigated as and when evidence indicates it should be.
It's a pity that so much time elapsed between the abandonment of the investigation by the Portuguese police of Madeleine's disappearance and the reopening of the case by NSY..
-
Isn't the £300,000 to finance the investigation remit and to arrest and charge an abductor?
Have I got time to put the kettle on before they do? @)(++(*
Naww, don’t be daft. Didn’t you know that the Met have a secret agenda and are slowly, slowly building a case against the parents? Just ask Pathfinder and Faithlilly if you don’t believe me... 8(0(*
-
All missing children's cases should be kept open and investigated as and when evidence indicates it should be.
It's a pity that so much time elapsed between the abandonment of the investigation by the Portuguese police of Madeleine's disappearance and the reopening of the case by NSY..
If I was Madeleine’s parents I’d be furious that SY have had 8 years and around £13 million to resolve the case and, it would appear, have found nothing...... and all this time their daughter could have been suffering.
And the called the PJ incompetent !
-
If I was Madeleine’s parents I’d be furious that SY have had 8 years and around £13 million to resolve the case and, it would appear, have found nothing...... and all this time their daughter could have been suffering.
And the called the PJ incompetent !
I don't imagine they will be "furious" !
Goodness me in your last post you felt they should be indicating their gratitude for the further funding.
I really have no idea of how complicated their feelings must be.
A mixture of gratitude, hope, grief, worry.........but not fury.
-
you might have two likes from others who dont understand but im fairly certain none of those witness stateents can be used aginst him...arguido rights...miranda...under caution...applies
Miranda? Has the case moved to the US?
Witnesses have more obligations to be truthful than arguidos in Portugal, as Kate's testimony clearly shows.
-
Miranda? Has the case moved to the US?
Witnesses have more obligations to be truthful than arguidos in Portugal, as Kate's testimony clearly shows.
Can witness statements be used in evidence against them in a court of law in Portugal?
-
If they are both wrong and the Met are building a case against an abductor, they don't seem to be in any hurry to do so IMO. If they're not building a case against either, then who are they building a case against.? Surely after £12 million they'll build a case against someone, or why bother in the first place.
It's £12 million they could have spent on useless ferry contracts instead. 8(0(*
Or half a Trump state visit.
-
Miranda? Has the case moved to the US?
Witnesses have more obligations to be truthful than arguidos in Portugal, as Kate's testimony clearly shows.
Arguido is similar to Miranda and interview under caution... I thought you might understand Portuguese law..
And you have the second part back to front... Arguidos do not face a penalty for lying... Witnesses do... As amaral found out... Same as in the uk
-
Yes it does. "Despite what HE (Gerry) SAID in his previous statements, HE (Gerry) STATES NOW and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door."
So which door was Gerry referring to?
In the early days (2005) people were calling the southern poolside patio doors "The Front Door". Others were calling the Northern wooden door "The Front Door". Because of this anomaly, forums were getting in a terrible mess, confused. I actually pointed this out on forum and the Northern wooden door became accepted as""The Front Door"
At that early stage, which door do you think he was referring to as the rear door?
-
Definitely not Trump's state visit, he got to the UK, Madeleine didn't. We got a return on our money for that one.
That’s a matter of opinion... ?8)@)-)
-
Can witness statements be used in evidence against them in a court of law in Portugal?
How do you think anyone who gives a false witness statement can be prosecuted, in Portugal, for giving a false witness statement?
The nearest offence I can think of in the UK is perverting the course of justice.
-
Or half a Trump state visit.
Half a Trump is half aTrump too many!
Oooops wrong board.
-
How do you think anyone who gives a false witness statement can be prosecuted, in Portugal, for giving a false witness statement?
The nearest offence I can think of in the UK is perverting the course of justice.
Amaral was prosecuted for false testimony as a witness... That's how....
-
Only an arguido can incriminate themself... A witness cannot
-
You mean like Kate and Gerry? They've done a hell of a job of it IMO.
The statements cannot be used against them... Apart from gerrys arguido statement
-
I don't imagine they will be "furious" !
Goodness me in your last post you felt they should be indicating their gratitude for the further funding.
I really have no idea of how complicated their feelings must be.
A mixture of gratitude, hope, grief, worry.........but not fury.
A lack of gratitude to the HO for the funding. Furious, yes furious, that after almost £13 million and 8 years their daughter’s fate is still unknown.
Perhaps that’s why we have had no direct thanks from the parents to OG in years and, it is reported, a complaint was made against several of it’s officers.
-
A lack of gratitude to the HO for the funding. Furious, yes furious, that after almost £13 million and 8 years their daughter’s fate is still unknown.
Perhaps that’s why we have had no direct thanks from the parents to OG in years and, it is reported, a complaint was made against several of it’s officers.
Weird logic. Faithlilly believes a) that the parents are guilty of hiding their child’s body and b) that they are furious with OG for not finding their daughter after 8 years. This. Does. Not. Compute.
-
A lack of gratitude to the HO for the funding. Furious, yes furious, that after almost £13 million and 8 years their daughter’s fate is still unknown.
Perhaps that’s why we have had no direct thanks from the parents to OG in years and, it is reported, a complaint was made against several of it’s officers.
You know there has been no direct thanks from the parents to the personnel of OG.?
Who made this complaint you reference to?
And again where is the cite for the fury you allude to?
-
Weird logic. Faithlilly believes a) that the parents are guilty of hiding their child’s body and b) that they are furious with OG for not finding their daughter after 8 years. This. Does. Not. Compute.
Could be they're a bit miffed that OG have dragged it out so long, without signing it off with the blame all being on Jimmy abductor.
-
Could be they're a bit miffed that OG have dragged it out so long, without signing it off with the blame all being on Jimmy abductor.
Could be they’re ecstatic that after 8 years and twelve million quid the Met still haven’t come knocking on their front door with the handcuffs... 8(0(*
-
Could be they're a bit miffed that OG have dragged it out so long, without signing it off with the blame all being on Jimmy abductor.
Is there an indication that they are either furious or miffed with the OG investigation?
-
Could be they’re ecstatic that after 8 years and twelve million quid the Met still haven’t come knocking on their front door with the handcuffs... 8(0(*
Well, that as well, of course. Now they have to endure another year.
-
Well, that as well, of course. Now they have to endure another year.
Endure another year of what?
-
Endure another year of what?
Doubt, uncertainty, Facebook, Twitter, internet forums. Take your pick
-
Endure another year of what?
Of not knowing what happened to their daughter
-
Of not knowing what happened to their daughter
Yes, my thoughts too.
-
Well, that as well, of course. Now they have to endure another year.
They’ve managed to endure the last 12 years, I’m sure they’re very relieved that the search for their daughter continues, even it it means more months of waiting for results.
-
It's interesting reading through the thread to see how the discussion has moved away from front doors, back doors, key, no key to the topic of inadmissible evidence. The supporters don't like the subject of doors and keys. They clearly wouldn't like to see it admitted as evidence IMO.
I wonder why they feel like that? I mean Gerry did sign both documents, which means it did happen, inadmissible evidence or not.
gerrys signature is nether here nor there.
-
It's interesting reading through the thread to see how the discussion has moved away from front doors, back doors, key, no key to the topic of inadmissible evidence. The supporters don't like the subject of doors and keys. They clearly wouldn't like to see it admitted as evidence IMO.
I wonder why they feel like that? I mean Gerry did sign both documents, which means it did happen, inadmissible evidence or not.
your signature...do you have a cite...its a fallacy imo
-
Who needs a signature, Lee Rainbow verifies their veracity.
I dont believe rainbow said taht,,,...he said the parents should be investigated but I dont beleive he said the rest...and you have no proof he did
-
The contradictions in Gerald McCann’s statements. Denial won't do anyone any good IMHO.
That's you saying that... Where is the proof rainbow said that
Save it till tomorrow.. Sleep well
-
It's interesting reading through the thread to see how the discussion has moved away from front doors, back doors, key, no key to the topic of inadmissible evidence. The supporters don't like the subject of doors and keys. They clearly wouldn't like to see it admitted as evidence IMO.
I wonder why they feel like that? I mean Gerry did sign both documents, which means it did happen, inadmissible evidence or not.
This supporter knows that you are harping on about nothing if any real import and making a mountain out of a molehill. Not even Amaral fixated on this issue as much as you have. I am absolute 100% certain it will never be raised in a court of law.
-
Settle down and respect each other. Applies to everyone - so don't take it personally.
-
Good to see we agree on somethings.
Night night!
Do you really agree? Got me baffled.
-
Who needs a signature, Lee Rainbow verifies their veracity.
He verifies the veracity of... what?
Was he simply presented with the two statements? Would he have been sufficiently aware of the likelihood for misunderstandings on that first chaotic day? Did he assume that Gerry would have had a written translation in English to read through? Did the interpreter read back the full written statement drafted by the inspector, or just the general gist?
I'm not sure how Amaral got away with his "ace" (if that's what he kept alluding to) in court as it's not part of the accessible files.
-
Episode 183; The Timeline.
According to Jim Clemente the timeline is contentious because the police failed to act quickly enough. In his opinion everyone in the group should have been separated immediately and closely questioned.
I agree that it would have helped to clarify the timeline, and I'm prepared to take their word that US and British police would have reacted immediately in that way. Whether it's reasonable to criticise the Portuguese police for failing to do what Anerican and British police would have done I don't know.
One red flag both he and Laura Richatds agree on is the fact that Kate doesn't mention checking if the twins are OK when she realises that Madeleine is missing, and that she leaves them alone to go anf get the others. (32:00) They also wonder if she called Madeleine's name as she searched the apartment for her.
-
Episode 183; The Timeline.
According to Jim Clemente the timeline is contentious because the police failed to act quickly enough. In his opinion everyone in the group should have been separated immediately and closely questioned.
I agree that it would have helped to clarify the timeline, and I'm prepared to take their word that US and British police would have reacted immediately in that way. Whether it's reasonable to criticise the Portuguese police for failing to do what Anerican and British police would have done I don't know.
One red flag both he and Laura Richatds agree on is the fact that Kate doesn't mention checking if the twins are OK when she realises that Madeleine is missing, and that she leaves them alone to go anf get the others. (32:00) They also wonder if she called Madeleine's name as she searched the apartment for her.
i dont think any of that is unreasonable.....hs anyone listened to the final thoughts...what are their conclusions
-
Episode 183; The Timeline.
According to Jim Clemente the timeline is contentious because the police failed to act quickly enough. In his opinion everyone in the group should have been separated immediately and closely questioned.
I agree that it would have helped to clarify the timeline, and I'm prepared to take their word that US and British police would have reacted immediately in that way. Whether it's reasonable to criticise the Portuguese police for failing to do what Anerican and British police would have done I don't know.
One red flag both he and Laura Richatds agree on is the fact that Kate doesn't mention checking if the twins are OK when she realises that Madeleine is missing, and that she leaves them alone to go anf get the others. (32:00) They also wonder if she called Madeleine's name as she searched the apartment for her.
I haven't listened to it, but I will.
A few points in the meantime:
The GNR is the first port of call. Their job was to assess the situation (including verifying that she really wasn't anywhere to be found in the flat - which could well explain the squashed curtain behind the sofa) and to call the PJ in the event of the suspicion of a more serious crime than the run-of-the-mill ones that they routinely dealt with.
Bearing in mind that they were the first responders, was there a first-responder protocol at the time in Portugal? (From memory, there wasn't, but I'd be happy to stand corrected.)
-
I haven't listened to it, but I will.
A few points in the meantime:
The GNR is the first port of call. Their job was to assess the situation (including verifying that she really wasn't anywhere to be found in the flat - which could well explain the squashed curtain behind the sofa) and to call the PJ in the event of the suspicion of a more serious crime than the run-of-the-mill ones that they routinely dealt with.
Bearing in mind that they were the first responders, was there a first-responder protocol at the time in Portugal? (From memory, there wasn't, but I'd be happy to stand corrected.)
There are huge gaps in what we know and what we may surmise about the police response.
From a thread about the police timeline, it is difficult to establish when the GNR were informed of the abduction theory. The earliest response fits a potential missing child rather than a potential abduction.
The escalation to the PJ suggests 5A was being treated as a possible crime scene.
The hauling in of CSI expertise from Lisbon suggests the PJ were taking it very seriously, but by that time, the media scrum had long since started.
-
There are huge gaps in what we know and what we may surmise about the police response.
From a thread about the police timeline, it is difficult to establish when the GNR were informed of the abduction theory. The earliest response fits a potential missing child rather than a potential abduction.
The escalation to the PJ suggests 5A was being treated as a possible crime scene.
The hauling in of CSI expertise from Lisbon suggests the PJ were taking it very seriously, but by that time, the media scrum had long since started.
Good post until one hits the bit about "the media scrum" and all that implies.
Apart from it being used by Amaral in his book to excuse not carrying out a reconstruction ... how could the media possibly have interfered with a police investigation?
The police had the power to keep the media to the periphery. Did that not happen?
-
There are huge gaps in what we know and what we may surmise about the police response.
From a thread about the police timeline, it is difficult to establish when the GNR were informed of the abduction theory. The earliest response fits a potential missing child rather than a potential abduction.
The escalation to the PJ suggests 5A was being treated as a possible crime scene.
The hauling in of CSI expertise from Lisbon suggests the PJ were taking it very seriously, but by that time, the media scrum had long since started.
I agree. However the GNR had to assess whether Madeleine wasn't just hiding or asleep somewhere in the flat to start with, and therefore could have been much a do about nothing.
It would seem normal to check in areas that panicked people might not have thought of, including behind the sofa.
-
Good post until one hits the bit about "the media scrum" and all that implies.
Apart from it being used by Amaral in his book to excuse not carrying out a reconstruction ... how could the media possibly have interfered with a police investigation?
The police had the power to keep the media to the periphery. Did that not happen?
That was not what I was saying or implying.
Lisbon to Luz is 3 hours by car.
I don't know if the decision to call in Lisbon CSI experts was made before or after the media started to camp out in Luz. It is another one of those gaps in knowledge.
Until the Lisbon team arrived, it had been Algarve expertise. Presumably, someone decided to call in the big boys. I don't know who or when or why.
-
I agree. However the GNR had to assess whether Madeleine wasn't just hiding or asleep somewhere in the flat to start with, and therefore could have been much a do about nothing.
It would seem normal to check in areas that panicked people might not have thought of, including behind the sofa.
Would a child still be hiding over an hour after the mother and father arrived back at the apartment?
Maybe trapped and suffocated is a possibility, but I think playing hide and seek 1 hour later is taking it a bit far, so they would have to be looking for a body IMO if they searched the apartment again.
-
Eposide 184 seems to be a repeat of 183, so Episide 185;
Why Madeleine and not one of the twins? Jim Clemente says an abduction for maternal reasons would have wanted one of the younger children, so his opinion is the motive was either sexual or trafficking (selling her).
Laura Richards questions the closing of the window and shutters rather than leaving the evidence alone and moving the twins out; into the parent's room, for exanple.
They both seem unaware of how the shutters worked and how they stayed up.
Laura Richards firmly states that she has no confidence at all in the timeline given by the group.
-
Would a child still be hiding over an hour after the mother and father arrived back at the apartment?
Maybe trapped and suffocated is a possibility, but I think playing hide and seek 1 hour later is taking it a bit far, so they would have to be looking for a body IMO if they searched the apartment again.
Why? The GNR had to justify that they had also checked before passing the case on to the PJ.
-
Eposide 184 seems to be a repeat of 183, so Episide 185;
Why Madeleine and not one of the twins? Jim Clemente says an abduction for maternal reasons would have wanted one of the younger children, so his opinion is the motive was either sexual or trafficking (selling her).
Laura Richards questions the closing of the window and shutters rather than leaving the evidence alone and moving the twins out; into the parent's room, for exanple.
They both seem unaware of how the shutters worked and how they stayed up.
Laura Richards firmly states that she has no confidence at all in the timeline given by the group.
When I think about it, as long as someone used a pen or such like the window could have been slid shut, and that would have stopped any draught.
-
Listening to these two, they criticise the Portuguese investigators but they also criticise Operation Grange. Both, in their opinion, failed to clear the ground at the start of their investigations.
-
that really is rubbish of the highest order if you don’t mind me saying. Why would blame revert straight back to the parents and not the b........ who ran her over and put her in his or her car to hide the body?
Because it would not have happened had the parents exercised a little bit of savy in the first place. Who in their right mind goes off leaving three toddlers alone for over an hour while based in a holiday apartment which isn't even locked.
-
I don't think he does... He says he wishes to correct a mistake.... Doesn't say who's mistake it was
I think you need to read the statements again as you are wrong.
Gerry McCann - PJ Statement dated 10 May 2007
"Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
There you go, the rear door (patio) was unlocked as was the front door to the car park which for the benefit of those who don't already understand means that the front door could be opened easily from the inside. The two GNR trackers dogs called in to find Maddie's scent trail a matter of hours after her disappearance followed her fresh scent out that front door.
-
IMO, no alarm bells as yet ringing in the rooms of both current investigations?
Really? ...and you know this how exactly??
-
I think you need to read the statements again as you are wrong.
Gerry McCann - PJ Statement dated 10 May 2007
"Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
There you go, the rear door (patio) was unlocked as was the front door to the car park which for the benefit of those who don't already understand means that the front door could be opened easily from the inside. The two GNR trackers dogs called in to find Maddie's scent trail a matter of hours after her disappearance followed her fresh scent out that front door.
Those are the words of the translator not Gerry... We don't know what Gerry said
And the dog could have been following a scent from earlier that day
-
So which door was Gerry referring to?
In the early days (2005) people were calling the southern poolside patio doors "The Front Door". Others were calling the Northern wooden door "The Front Door". Because of this anomaly, forums were getting in a terrible mess, confused. I actually pointed this out on forum and the Northern wooden door became accepted as""The Front Door"
At that early stage, which door do you think he was referring to as the rear door?
I don't know why you continue to muddy this issue because it is crystal clear in reality. The rear door was the patio door off course. The front door accessed the car park.
-
Those are the words of the translator not Gerry... We don't know what Gerry said
And the dog could have been following a scent from earlier that day
Don't be so obtuse, GM signed his statements as being correct.
-
Don't be so obtuse, GM signed his statements as being correct.
Gerry couldn't read the statements so so he has no way of knowing if they were correct.... Fact.. IMO you are the one being obtuse
-
Gerry couldn't read the statements so so he has no way of knowing if they were correct.... Fact
Well naturally they were read back to him in English. Jeeesh
-
I think you need to read the statements again as you are wrong.
Gerry McCann - PJ Statement dated 10 May 2007
"Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
There you go, the rear door (patio) was unlocked as was the front door to the car park which for the benefit of those who don't already understand means that the front door could be opened easily from the inside. The two GNR trackers dogs called in to find Maddie's scent trail a matter of hours after her disappearance followed her fresh scent out that front door.
What police officer would admit that a colleague had possibly made a mistake in noting what had been said before?
Gerry could have said that it wasn't what he'd said in the first place for all anyone knows.
The bottom line is that what appeared as a fairly obvious discrepancy within the same statement was clarified.
-
Well naturally they were read back to him in English. Jeeesh
They were read back but we don't know what was read back by a Portuguese speaker to an English speaker with a Scottish accent.. The statements should have been written in English and then translated
Kate has already told us there were mistakes in the statements
-
There are huge gaps in what we know and what we may surmise about the police response.
From a thread about the police timeline, it is difficult to establish when the GNR were informed of the abduction theory. The earliest response fits a potential missing child rather than a potential abduction.
The escalation to the PJ suggests 5A was being treated as a possible crime scene.
The hauling in of CSI expertise from Lisbon suggests the PJ were taking it very seriously, but by that time, the media scrum had long since started.
IMO it was the parents who first mentioned abduction to the GNR and that would have happened from very early on.
-
What police officer would admit that a colleague had possibly made a mistake in noting what had been said before?
Gerry could have said that it wasn't what he'd said in the first place for all anyone knows.
The bottom line is that what appeared as a fairly obvious discrepancy within the same statement was clarified.
One man's discrepancy is another man's lie!
-
One man's discrepancy is another man's lie!
Possibly, but both are therefore possible. If the interviews had been taped, then presumably it would have been clear. But they weren't.
-
Never answer a list of questions that any Police Force has had to time to consider. They are psychologically designed to trip you up.
-
Listening to these two, they criticise the Portuguese investigators but they also criticise Operation Grange. Both, in their opinion, failed to clear the ground at the start of their investigations.
The trouble that I see is what options did he have to clear the ground. They got the Tapas 9 to give statements the next day. This was followed up by further statements a few days later.
I think Amaral imagined he could make some of them turn against Kate by intense interrogation. There appear to be sessions referred to that are not recorded in the file, so we don't know what was being divulged under interrogation.
GA would have known that making them arguidos from day 2 they could just answer no comment.
How do you suggest that they clear the ground beneath their feet?
-
The trouble that I see is what options did he have to clear the ground. They got the Tapas 9 to give statements the next day. This was followed up by further statements a few days later.
I think Amaral imagined he could make some of them turn against Kate by intense interrogation. There appear to be sessions referred to that are not recorded in the file, so we don't know what was being divulged under interrogation.
GA would have known that making them arguidos from day 2 they could just answer no comment.
How do you suggest that they clear the ground beneath their feet?
Forcibly making someone an Arguido seems like a shot in your own foot, if you ask me. So all it accomplished was to suggest that The McCanns were suspect. But then Amaral didn't have anything else.
My opinion of Goncalo Amaral is now unprintable on this Forum. But may I be allowed to say that his worst crime in my opinion was gross stupidity.
-
Because it would not have happened had the parents exercised a little bit of savy in the first place. Who in their right mind goes off leaving three toddlers alone for over an hour while based in a holiday apartment which isn't even locked.
Who would have known it wasn't locked other than the parents? Or are we just thinking purely "woke and wandered"? The one who knew both doors were unlocked was Madeleine. The ones who knew only the patio door was unlocked were the Tapas 7, and whoever that couple were that was seen the night before (if you believe that story).
Other residences knowing the security situation would work it out. If the checks were done by a caregiver via the patio door the patio door had to be unlocked.
-
Forcibly making someone an Arguido seems like a shot in your own foot, if you ask me. So all it accomplished was to suggest that The McCanns were suspect. But then Amaral didn't have anything else.
My opinion of Goncalo Amaral is now unprintable on this Forum. But may I be allowed to say that his worst crime in my opinion was gross stupidity.
We can only say he was stupid if it is plainly obvious how he could have done it better.
Would GA be justified in calling off all investigation into a kidnapped Madeleine had the parents adopted a stance of no comment from day 2?
OK he never did make them arguidos from Day 2 so we will never know if Kate would adopt a "no comment" stance from Day 2.
Maybe they (Jim and Laura) are right, GA should have challenged then on day 2 and made the arguidos to "clear the ground beneath their feet".
It seems a gamble either way.
-
The trouble that I see is what options did he have to clear the ground. They got the Tapas 9 to give statements the next day. This was followed up by further statements a few days later.
I think Amaral imagined he could make some of them turn against Kate by intense interrogation. There appear to be sessions referred to that are not recorded in the file, so we don't know what was being divulged under interrogation.
GA would have known that making them arguidos from day 2 they could just answer no comment.
How do you suggest that they clear the ground beneath their feet?
Jim and Laura seemed to think the PJ should have gone in hard at midnight, separated the group and questioned them thoroughly. Neither of them suggest how that could have been organised. Should PJ personnel have been called in? Interpreters woken and brought in? What about the 7 sleeping children? Criticising with hindsight is easy.
I think the PJ could have achieved more in regard to the timeline once they began to doubt it.
-
We can only say he was stupid if it is plainly obvious how he could have done it better.
Would GA be justified in calling off all investigation into a kidnapped Madeleine had the parents adopted a stance of no comment from day 2?
OK he never did make them arguidos from Day 2 so we will never know if Kate would adopt a "no comment" stance from Day 2.
Maybe they (Jim and Laura) are right, GA should have challenged then on day 2 and made the arguidos to "clear the ground beneath their feet".
It seems a gamble either way.
I think the elephant in the room as far as these podcasts are concerned ~ is the non-discussion of the fact that Amaral was himself an arguido and was subsequently charged ~ brought to trial ~ found guilty ~ a conviction which was upheld on appeal.
In the circumstances ... why did the Portuguese authorities think it appropriate for him to be working on a case of magnitude such as Madeleine's?
-
Never answer a list of questions that any Police Force has had to time to consider. They are psychologically designed to trip you up.
Not sure about that, Eleanor. It may just have been a matter of inexperience or that no one was really wide awake that morning. I'd have thought that the main thing was to get the ball rolling at that point.
What kind of briefing would there have been between the PJ officers present in PdL until late the early hours and the inspector who was on duty that morning?
The PJ somehow had to also scamble to find someone available at short notice to interpret for them.
-
We can only say he was stupid if it is plainly obvious how he could have done it better.
Would GA be justified in calling off all investigation into a kidnapped Madeleine had the parents adopted a stance of no comment from day 2?
OK he never did make them arguidos from Day 2 so we will never know if Kate would adopt a "no comment" stance from Day 2.
Maybe they (Jim and Laura) are right, GA should have challenged then on day 2 and made the arguidos to "clear the ground beneath their feet".
It seems a gamble either way.
Goncalo Amaral must have thought that all of his birthdays had come at once. In My Opinion. Another Mother who had killed her child, just as he was made Arguido in the case of a previously missing child.
He was never going to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in any other significant way.
But he wasn't so stupid as not to realise that neither of The McCanns could have done this without help from someone local. Hence Robert Murat.
The best that can be said for Goncalo Amaral is that he probably believed his own fantasies.
-
Jim and Laura seemed to think the PJ should have gone in hard at midnight, separated the group and questioned them thoroughly. Neither of them suggest how that could have been organised. Should PJ personnel have been called in? Interpreters woken and brought in? What about the 7 sleeping children? Criticising with hindsight is easy.
I think the PJ could have achieved more in regard to the timeline once they began to doubt it.
The PJ didn't arrive until nearly 1:00 AM. The group would have been dispersed doing searches, organising photos etc.
In fact the PJ asked the McCanns to vacate the apartment so it could be made a crime scene. By the time they had taken notes from the GNR and Gerry etc and taken photos it was time to call it a day. I can't imagine anyone being interrogated at 3:00 - 4:00 AM in the morning.
What you say is so true.
-
I think the elephant in the room as far as these podcasts are concerned ~ is the non-discussion of the fact that Amaral was himself an arguido and was subsequently charged ~ brought to trial ~ found guilty ~ a conviction which was upheld on appeal.
In the circumstances ... why did the Portuguese authorities think it appropriate for him to be working on a case of magnitude such as Madeleine's?
I would like an answer to that. How could The Portuguese Authorities have been so stupid?
-
Not sure about that, Eleanor. It may just have been a matter of inexperience or that no one was really wide awake that morning. I'd have thought that the main thing was to get the ball rolling at that point.
What kind of briefing would there have been between the PJ officers present in PdL until late the early hours and the inspector who was on duty that morning?
The PJ somehow had to also scamble to find someone available at short notice to interpret for them.
They didn't have to scramble to make The McCanns Arguidos.
-
I think the elephant in the room as far as these podcasts are concerned ~ is the non-discussion of the fact that Amaral was himself an arguido and was subsequently charged ~ brought to trial ~ found guilty ~ a conviction which was upheld on appeal.
In the circumstances ... why did the Portuguese authorities think it appropriate for him to be working on a case of magnitude such as Madeleine's?
Amaral's superior was Encarnação as the head of Faro.
Did he think it'd all wash over? Or that she'd be found within a oouple of days?
-
They didn't have to scramble to make The McCanns Arguidos.
No, but they'd had time to get organised by then.
-
I think the elephant in the room as far as these podcasts are concerned ~ is the non-discussion of the fact that Amaral was himself an arguido and was subsequently charged ~ brought to trial ~ found guilty ~ a conviction which was upheld on appeal.
In the circumstances ... why did the Portuguese authorities think it appropriate for him to be working on a case of magnitude such as Madeleine's?
Perhaps it's not as important as you think it is.
-
No, but they'd had time to get organised by then.
Sorry, I thought you said that they didn't have time to get organized.
So who wrote The Questions, 48 of them, from an Interview on the previous day?
Goncalo Amaral knew exactly what he was doing, IMO. But he had to have them interviewed as Witnesses first. That much is surely obvious.
-
They didn't have to scramble to make The McCanns Arguidos.
Are you suggesting the McCanns should have been made arguidos even before they were interviewed.
-
Perhaps it's not as important as you think it is.
You think? An Incredible liar? And Amaral's deposition was written in his own hand.
-
Sorry, I thought you said that they didn't have time to get organized.
So who wrote The Questions, 48 of them, from an Interview on the previous day?
Goncalo Amaral knew exactly what he was doing, IMO. But he had to have them interviewed as Witnesses first. That much is surely obvious.
But that is 4 months after Madeleine went missing. Jim and Laura wanted them made arguido on the 4th May 2007 not the 7th September 2007.
-
Sorry, I thought you said that they didn't have time to get organized.
So who wrote The Questions, 48 of them, from an Interview on the previous day?
Goncalo Amaral knew exactly what he was doing, IMO. But he had to have them interviewed as Witnesses first. That much is surely obvious.
I was talking about the morning of 4 May, not September.
-
Jim and Laura seemed to think the PJ should have gone in hard at midnight, separated the group and questioned them thoroughly. Neither of them suggest how that could have been organised. Should PJ personnel have been called in? Interpreters woken and brought in? What about the 7 sleeping children? Criticising with hindsight is easy.
I think the PJ could have achieved more in regard to the timeline once they began to doubt it.
The problem is we don't know how accurate the statements are... You can argue they are but you cannot prove they are...
-
Are you suggesting the McCanns should have been made arguidos even before they were interviewed.
No. But then The McCanns almost certainly didn't know that they had that right.
It all went very well as far as I can see.
-
I was talking about the morning of 4 May, not September.
What has that got to do with anything? Amaral didn't know anything about anything at that point.
-
No. But then The McCanns almost certainly didn't know that they had that right.
It all went very well as far as I can see.
Is it normal practice to interview parents under caution in this situation... I really doubt it is..
As I understand the PJ could not have made them arguido as they had no evidence
-
The problem is we don't know how accurate the statements are... You can argue they are but you cannot prove they are...
It doesn't matter. It is what the PJ think that matters. They are listening to the witnesses and they most probably understood what was being said. The translator is for the witness not the inspector.
If there was any suspicion the whole group should have been made arguidos so they could be asked difficult and possibly incriminating questions.
Is it normal practice to interview parents under caution in this situation... I really doubt it is..
As I understand the PJ could not have made them arguido as they had no evidence
They just need to use the statistical fact that 85% of missing kids are the result of their parents and associates of the family.
-
Is it normal practice to interview parents under caution in this situation... I really doubt it is..
As I understand the PJ could not have made them arguido as they had no evidence
After The Witness Interviews, which were necessary, I think they hoped that they could scare Kate McCann witless.
The PJ never had any evidence, but The Law was about to change, so Amaral jumped in while he still had the chance. Which Rebelo later said was hasty.
-
It doesn't matter. It is what the PJ think that matters. They are listening to the witnesses and they most probably understood what was being said. The translator is for the witness not the inspector.
If there was any suspicion the whole group should have been made arguidos so they could be asked difficult and possibly incriminating questions.
They just need to use the statistical fact that 85% of missing kids are the result of their parents and associates of the family.
That simply isn't good enough, Rob. And since most of them didn't speak English, how could they have known what was being said in English.
Sorry about that. The PJ should have made certain sure of what was being said.
-
It doesn't matter. It is what the PJ think that matters. They are listening to the witnesses and they most probably understood what was being said. The translator is for the witness not the inspector.
If there was any suspicion the whole group should have been made arguidos so they could be asked difficult and possibly incriminating questions.
They just need to use the statistical fact that 85% of missing kids are the result of their parents and associates of the family.
That statistic is intelligence not evidence... Is every parent normally interviewed under caution is my point... No one seems to have an answer... I don't see what difference it would have made... I don't see that Portuguese officers would understand what the witnesses said......we have no reliable record of the witness statements
-
That statistic is intelligence not evidence... Is every parent normally interviewed under caution is my point... No one seems to have an answer... I don't see what difference it would have made... I don't see that Portuguese officers would understand what the witnesses said......we have no reliable record of the witness statements
Being interviewed under caution is what is equivalent to arguido as I understand it. So if these two profiler/investigators are saying they needed to be interviewed under caution I say the Tapas 9 should have been made arguido from the 4th.
Are you say Jim Clemente is wrong?
-
Being interviewed under caution is what is equivalent to arguido as I understand it. So if these two profiler/investigators are saying they needed to be interviewed under caution I say the Tapas 9 should have been made arguido from the 4th.
You and they can say what they like... If you are using a substandard interviewing tecnique... Where errors are highly likely... Colin Sutton... It doesn't really matter ...
Are these podcast experts aware of the facts
-
That statistic is intelligence not evidence... Is every parent normally interviewed under caution is my point... No one seems to have an answer... I don't see what difference it would have made... I don't see that Portuguese officers would understand what the witnesses said......we have no reliable record of the witness statements
Are you say Jim Clemente is wrong?
-
Are you say Jim Clemente is wrong?
in what way...can you show he is aware how the statements were taken
-
Are you say Jim Clemente is wrong?
The Initial Investigation was a monumental cock up, akin to The Third World.
-
Are you say Jim Clemente is wrong?
Jim Clemente said it was imprtant to get accurate statements...the way the stateents were taken has no guarantee of accuracy...what we do know is atht colin sutton said the way the statements were taken meant there was a high chance of error
-
The Initial Investigation was a monumental cock up, akin to The Third World.
agreed
-
in what way...can you show he is aware how the statements were taken
Was he wrong to say the tapas 9 should have been immediately questioned under caution (made arguido)? That is the question.
-
Jim Clemente said it was imprtant to get accurate statements...the way the stateents were taken has no guarantee of accuracy...what we do know is atht colin sutton said the way the statements were taken meant there was a high chance of error
That is in hindsight. This is an action and intention even before pen is put to paper. The first thing according to Jim Clemente was to interview the Tapas 9 under caution.
-
Was he wrong to say the tapas 9 should have been immediately questioned under caution (made arguido)? That is the question.
I dont see any problem with that and i dont think it would have made a scrap of difference...is he aawre of the way the statements were taken...and is it normal prctice...were ben Needhams family immediately interviwed under caution...is taht normal procedurer
-
That is in hindsight. This is an action and intention even before pen is put to paper. The first thing according to Jim Clemente was to interview the Tapas 9 under caution.
It is not hindsight....its important to get accurate statements....we dont know how accurate the statements are..
whats teh point of any interview if you cannot rely on the accuracy of teh statements
-
I dont see any problem with that and i dont think it would have made a scrap of difference...is he aawre of the way the statements were taken...and is it normal prctice...were ben Needhams family immediately interviwed under caution...is taht normal procedurer
I'm assuming Jim Clemente is aware of normal procedure in the USA. What is normal practice in Portugal? Is it torture first ask questions later? I don't know.
-
It is not hindsight....its important to get accurate statements....we dont know how accurate the statements are..
whats teh point of any interview if you cannot rely on the accuracy of teh statements
What do you think should have happened to achieve the right result?
-
Was he wrong to say the tapas 9 should have been immediately questioned under caution (made arguido)? That is the question.
If the disappearance had taken place in a different country, I would have said no. However, it took place in Portugal. In PT law at the time, the clock was ticking once someone had been made arguido, and that status couldn't (still can't?) be lifted until the end of the process.
-
If the disappearance had taken place in a different country, I would have said no. However, it took place in Portugal. In PT law at the time, the clock was ticking once someone had been made arguido, and that status couldn't (still can't?) be lifted until the end of the process.
There were those others who were made arguidos, what is their status now? I don't see the problem being made arguido if it only means interviewed under caution.
-
Was he wrong to say the tapas 9 should have been immediately questioned under caution (made arguido)? That is the question.
Don't you think that would have been a bit precipitative. Nine Arguidos without a scrap of evidence that they had participated in the disappearance of a child? That would have been just plain silly.
Mind you, the whole Investigation would have been shut down at that point, and No Rogatory Interviews from any of them.
-
I'm assuming Jim Clemente is aware of normal procedure in the USA. What is normal practice in Portugal? Is it torture first ask questions later? I don't know.
Probably. They do have form on this.
-
Don't you think that would have been a bit precipitative. Nine Arguidos without a scrap of evidence that they had participated in the disappearance of a child? That would have been just plain silly.
Mind you, the whole Investigation would have been shut down at that point, and No Rogatory Interviews from any of them.
So you are disagreeing with Jim and Laura on the podcast. So you seem to be saying Amaral did it right, yet you called him names a little while ago.
-
The Initial Investigation was a monumental cock up, akin to The Third World.
According to these commentators Operation Grange have also messed up, despite their alleged superiority.
-
According to these commentators Operation Grange have also messed up, despite their alleged superiority.
What was their criticism of Operation Grange?
-
Was he wrong to say the tapas 9 should have been immediately questioned under caution (made arguido)? That is the question.
Did he say under caution? I don't remember that. He certainly thought it was a mistake to let them 'contaminate' each other's memories. Dianne Webster's change of story is a good example of that. She categorically denied seeing Matt on her way to the Tapas, then 'remembered' it a year later after being 'reminded' by her daughter and son in law.
-
What was their criticism of Operation Grange?
Laura Richards said they didn't begin at the beginning, despite Redwood claiming that he had.
-
Laura Richards said they didn't begin at the beginning, despite Redwood claiming that he had.
what does she know
-
Did he say under caution? I don't remember that. He certainly thought it was a mistake to let them 'contaminate' each other's memories. Dianne Webster's change of story is a good example of that. She categorically denied seeing Matt on her way to the Tapas, then 'remembered' it a year later after being 'reminded' by her daughter and son in law.
its quite funny if Rob has it wrong...a simple mistake....but a lie if it was the McCanns LOL...
-
There were those others who were made arguidos, what is their status now? I don't see the problem being made arguido if it only means interviewed under caution.
For what it's worth my understanding is that Murat was made arguido in late May, IIRC. Normally, the case had to come to a conclusion within 8 months. However, his status was prolonged because along the way the McCanns were also made arguidos, and therefore the time limit started all over. Beyond that, short extensions were possible, if duly justified. The laws have been amended since then, numerous times.
Re the later arguidos in the midst of the UK rogs in PT, I couldn't find any provision in PT law on such a situation at the time. My assumption (although perhaps wrong) is that it was a temporary status to conform to the UK norm, i.e. the nearest equivalent of being questioned under caution. Or some of those interviewed had requested the status in order to have a lawyer present.
-
So you are disagreeing with Jim and Laura on the podcast. So you seem to be saying Amaral did it right, yet you called him names a little while ago.
I haven't watched this Podcast. I really can't face another one, so I don't know what they said.
No, I do not think that Amaral got it right.
-
According to these commentators Operation Grange have also messed up, despite their alleged superiority.
In what way have Operation Grange messed up?
-
Laura Richards said they didn't begin at the beginning, despite Redwood claiming that he had.
Where is the beginning?
-
what does she know
More than you when it comes to NSY in my opinion.
-
Just because these three claim to be expertsdoes not mean they are right... We all know experts disagree... I don't see any real serious criticism of Grange... They have chosen not to interview the mccanns under caution... I don't see any problem with that.
In my view if you look at all the evidence it's clear the mccanns are not involved... And that's what I feel Grange have done....
-
More than you when it comes to NSY in my opinion.
I would say I and several posters here know more about the case than she dies and like Sutton she knows no more about what Grange are doing than we do
-
I haven't watched this Podcast. I really can't face another one, so I don't know what they said.
No, I do not think that Amaral got it right.
No need to watch Eleanor, you listen to a podcast. I listen while doing my sugar art.
-
I would say I and several posters here know more about the case than she dies and like Sutton she knows no more about what Grange are doing than we do
Some posters on here are very informed on the case....you, unfortunately, aren’t one of them.
-
No need to watch Eleanor, you listen to a podcast. I listen while doing my sugar art.
Really? No Pictures?
-
Some posters on here are very informed on the case....you, unfortunately, aren’t one of them.
That’s not true.
-
That’s not true.
All I see is Davel always trying to divert the discussion back to one of his strong points. Real knowledge would be to discuss the OP topic. Has Davel listened to the podcasts yet?
-
I would say I and several posters here know more about the case than she dies and like Sutton she knows no more about what Grange are doing than we do
What they know which you don't is how SY normally operate. They both agree that this case was approached differently.
-
Some posters on here are very informed on the case....you, unfortunately, aren’t one of them.
Seeing as you thought gerrys statement could be used in evidence against him when it couldn't it looks like it's you who hasn't got a grasp of the facts
-
All I see is Davel always trying to divert the discussion back to one of his strong points. Real knowledge would be to discuss the OP topic. Has Davel listened to the podcasts yet?
To state the Davel is not very well informed about the case is just ad hom nonsense. I know you and Faithlilly both have a problem with him but he knows plenty about the case.
-
What they know which you don't is how SY normally operate. They both agree that this case was approached dufferently.
Neither of them know how the case was approached... They seem to know no more than we do
-
Seeing as you thought gerrys statement could be used in evidence against him when it couldn't it looks like it's you who hasn't got a grasp of the facts
I think you are wrong. Gerry could give evidence in the case or alternatively his statement could be read to the court. Isn't that what Carana posted?
-
All I see is Davel always trying to divert the discussion back to one of his strong points. Real knowledge would be to discuss the OP topic. Has Davel listened to the podcasts yet?
Thanks for the admision that I have strong points... I can't argue with that... I've listened to snippets...
I think it's clear there will be nothing new... Just more opinion
I've seen nothing of real interest from posters, who have listened to it
-
Seeing as you thought gerrys statement could be used in evidence against him when it couldn't it looks like it's you who hasn't got a grasp of the facts
Don’t be silly Davel.
-
I think you are wrong. Gerry could give evidence in the case or alternatively his statement could be read to the court. Isn't that what Carana posted?
No it wasn't.. You need to read it again... Carana confirmed I was correct... Have another look.. You don't seem to have understood it at, all
-
Thanks for the admision that I have strong points... I can't argue with that... I've listened to snippets...
I think it's clear there will be nothing new... Just more opinion
I've seen nothing of real interest from posters, who have listened to it
IMO Jim Clemente is a strong point person too. If you listened to it and disagreed with Jim Clemente, I'd like to hear your argument.
-
No it wasn't.. You need to read it again... Carana confirmed I was correct... Have another look.. You don't seem to have understood it at, all
At least we are talking about the same post by Carana.
-
IMO Jim Clemente is a strong point person too. If you listened to it and disagreed with Jim Clemente, I'd like to hear your argument.
I've given it...
-
At least we are talking about the same post by Carana.
Carana confirmed I was correct
-
I've given it...
Specific to the point in question. I wonder if you are capable of being specific.
-
I don't know why you continue to muddy this issue because it is crystal clear in reality. The rear door was the patio door off course. The front door accessed the car park.
It is crystal clear NOW Angelo, BUT it wasn't in the early days.
I had to make a stance on this very forum, spelling out which was the front and which the rear. The forum was getting in a complete mess because some believed that the patio door was the front and others believed it was the rear door. The patio door is the rear door.
Same as I had to make a stance about distances from the Tapas Restaurant to 5A, both crow flies and walking. Even spelling out how to use the Google Earth distance measuring device.
Thank goodness both stances eventually worked with the exception of a few. There has been at least one one on here in the past months that has still got it wrong.
Please do not knock my post for no reason
-
Specific to the point in question. I wonder if you are capable of being specific.
If you want me to be specific... You have to be specific... What specific point are you referring to... Stop the sniping too
-
If you want me to be specific... You have to be specific... What specific point are you referring to... Stop the sniping too
Steps are:
You Listen to the podcast.
If you disagree with Jim, note the point he is making. (Episode number and position)
Then give the forum your view on the issue.
-
Steps are:
You Listen to the podcast.
If you disagree with Jim, note the point he is making. (Episode number and position)
Then give the forum your view on the issue.
You have asked me to be specific yet you are not.. That's a bit silly
-
You have asked me to be specific yet you are not.. That's a bit silly
That is specific for only you know what you disagree with Jim about.
-
Neither of them know how the case was approached... They seem to know no more than we do
Their inside knowledge allows them to spot the unusual features of this investigation. Many had already noticed that the remit was restrictive and they confirmed it. People had argued that Grange was investigating only one scenario and they confirmed that too.
In my opinion those who promote Operation Grange as beyond reproach should consider why even their own are concerned about the way they have conducted this investigation.
-
I've looked through Carana's post and it does show up It was within the last 24 -36 hours wasn't it.
I see a section of posts have been removed. don't know why at the moment.
Perhaps it was because they were all off topic. I see the thread has been successfully taken off topic again.
-
Perhaps it was because they were all off topic. I see the thread has been successfully taken off topic again.
Jim Clemente suggests the Tapas 9 needed interviewing under caution. Working out when that statement could be used in court is hardly off topic, surely!
-
Did he say under caution? I don't remember that. He certainly thought it was a mistake to let them 'contaminate' each other's memories. Dianne Webster's change of story is a good example of that. She categorically denied seeing Matt on her way to the Tapas, then 'remembered' it a year later after being 'reminded' by her daughter and son in law.
if not under caution, under oath. Which is caution for the threat is prosecute if it is proven any part was untrue. I'll have another look. How else do you stop people just making things up in a statement?
-
Jim Clemente suggests the Tapas 9 needed interviewing under caution. Working out when that statement could be used in court is hardly off topic, surely!
Sorry, I didn't hear him say that. I was referring to the arguing and complaining.
-
if not under caution, under oath. Which is caution for the threat is prosecute if it is proven any part was untrue. I'll have another look. How else do you stop people just making things up in a statement?
You can't actually stop them, but you can tease out the lies by closely questioning and scrutinising everything that is said, not just accepting things at face value.
-
Never answer a list of questions that any Police Force has had to time to consider. They are psychologically designed to trip you up.
They will only trip you up if you have something to trip over.
-
They will only trip you up if you have something to trip over.
exactly people who are scared of police have something to hide imo
-
They will only trip you up if you have something to trip over.
If there had never been a miscarriage of justice that would be true... How come innocent people are jailed
-
They will only trip you up if you have something to trip over.
This is not true.
-
This is not true.
In what way exactly ?
-
In what way exactly ?
Because innocent people are jailed
-
You can't actually stop them, but you can tease out the lies by closely questioning and scrutinising everything that is said, not just accepting things at face value.
Conversely, you can let them be hoisted by their own petard by allowing them to spin any old jive, then investigating their claims and proving the contrary. A set of lies can be equally useful.
-
They will only trip you up if you have something to trip over.
Which police era, in which country?
Yes, I've been amazed by how cooperation between forensic psychologists and duly trained officers have recently transformed the interrogation process in some countries, with no need for "slippery stairs" incidents.
-
exactly people who are scared of police have something to hide imo
How have you formed your opinion, Carly?
-
You can't actually stop them, but you can tease out the lies by closely questioning and scrutinising everything that is said, not just accepting things at face value.
And that is what Jim Clemente said they should do to the statements from the Tapas 9. You know the ones the PJ should have taken right at the start. You can't turn the clock back to the beginning again, so it is a very unhelpful suggestion really.
-
What about when you make stupid suggestions... Such as the whole abduction was a Prank... How can you be so stupid... Fair enough
Have you ever heard of the Butterfly effect?
"The butterfly effect is an idea that says that a small change can make much bigger changes happen. The idea started from weather prediction. Now the term is used for many things; some are scientific, and some are not."
I might have thought the "whole abduction" was the end result of a "butterfly effect" that started with the thought of someone thinking of playing a prank on Kate.
-
Have you ever heard of the Butterfly effect?
"The butterfly effect is an idea that says that a small change can make much bigger changes happen. The idea started from weather prediction. Now the term is used for many things; some are scientific, and some are not."
I might have thought the "whole abduction" was the end result of a "butterfly effect" that started with the thought of someone thinking of playing a prank on Kate.
I would think everyone on the forum would find that a stupid idea
-
I would think everyone on the forum would find that a stupid idea
Wait, what? Did I miss a meeting? Rob, did you actually suggest that the whole thing started as a wind up?
I....what?
-
I would think everyone on the forum would find that a stupid idea
Do you think the "Butterfly effect" is a stupid idea? I've heard about it but I haven't studied it.
-
Do you think the "Butterfly effect" is a stupid idea? I've heard about it but I haven't studied it.
No.. It's the Prank idea
-
Wait, what? Did I miss a meeting? Rob, did you actually suggest that the whole thing started as a wind up?
I....what?
This was in July 2016 nearly 3 years ago, it was put forward on this forum as a new theory. The whole thread was wiped in the end.
IMO For some reason by the Thursday Kate was feeling like she was being ignored. The other ladies went to the beach and later to the Paraiso Restaurant but Kate went for a run on her own.
IMO the group split.
Which could have started on the Wednesday night. Gerry went home in a huff. Kate came in later and decided to sleep in the kids room.
IMO There is tension, and at times like this people may play tricks to even the score.
-
This was in July 2016 nearly 3 years ago, it was put forward on this forum as a new theory. The whole thread was wiped in the end.
IMO For some reason by the Thursday Kate was feeling like she was being ignored. The other ladies went to the beach and later to the Paraiso Restaurant but Kate went for a run on her own.
IMO the group split.
Which could have started on the Wednesday night. Gerry went home in a huff. Kate came in later and decided to sleep in the kids room.
IMO There is tension, and at times like this people may play tricks to even the score.
OK, the first bit sort of ties together, with the buxom quizmaster thrown in - got it.
But how would this wind up manifest itself? Hide one of the kids?
-
OK, the first bit sort of ties together, with the buxom quizmaster thrown in - got it.
But how would this wind up manifest itself? Hide one of the kids?
The quiz was on Tuesday, but no doubt they were still talking about it (teasing each other) on Wednesday.
Thursday - there is the boating accident where Russell miraculously saves Matt's life. IMO that emboldened them to be adventurous. Dianne talks about it. We don't know what was thought as obviously it would be a secret, but the features were there (experience from years of working in industrial situation)
If you have ever played a prank on someone, there is A FAIR CHANCE IT DOESN'T GO TO PLAN.
-
The quiz was on Tuesday, but no doubt they were still talking about it (teasing each other) on Wednesday.
Thursday - there is the boating accident where Russell miraculously saves Matt's life. IMO that emboldened them to be adventurous. Dianne talks about it. We don't know what was thought as obviously it would be a secret, but the features were there (experience from years of working in industrial situation)
If you have ever played a prank on someone, there is A FAIR CHANCE IT DOESN'T GO TO PLAN.
OK, I can see some logic. A prank gone wrong. Were Russell, Matt, Dave and Gerry doing a bit of lads on the lash?
-
OK, I can see some logic. A prank gone wrong. Were Russell, Matt, Dave and Gerry doing a bit of lads on the lash?
It was a theory. Was there evidence for it? I've been looking for the reason that the prank theory fails but it hasn't, I haven't found it.
I think (IMO) that SY knows about this, for it was hinted at by Mark Rowley, "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted".
Like as if he was saying: "we know how she left the apartment, but when outside she was abducted".
-
It was a theory. Was there evidence for it? I've been looking for the reason that the prank theory fails but it hasn't, I haven't found it.
I think (IMO) that SY knows about this, for it was hinted at by Mark Rowley, "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted".
Like as if he was saying: "we know how she left the apartment, but when outside she was abducted".
But what was the prank? Take Maddie to another apartment, then let Kate discover her 'missing'?
-
But what was the prank? Take Maddie to another apartment, then let Kate discover her 'missing'?
No one will admit to a prank, so you'll never know what was planned, or even if it was planned, but what you're saying is along the lines of what could have been the general idea.
But I theorised that as the night progressed the plan changed, but for that I have no real evidence other than Matt at the last minute decided to do Kate's check for her.
-
Just thinking: the presence of Jez on the street would not have been anticipated. They talked for a while.
-
Do you know why carana and my posts Re this has been removec
Way off topic. If you need to discuss whether statements have any relevance in a trial then start an appropriate new thread.
-
All I see is Davel always trying to divert the discussion back to one of his strong points. Real knowledge would be to discuss the OP topic. Has Davel listened to the podcasts yet?
Good point Rob.
-
Just thinking: the presence of Jez on the street would not have been anticipated. They talked for a while.
I understand you're referring to your 'prank' theory, but surely if Gerry is literally just going to check on the kids, then chatting with Jez is just routine. There's no urgency, so he can just about chat to the natural end of a conversation with a casual acquaintance. Which he apparently did.
-
I understand you're referring to your 'prank' theory, but surely if Gerry is literally just going to check on the kids, then chatting with Jez is just routine. There's no urgency, so he can just about chat to the natural end of a conversation with a casual acquaintance. Which he apparently did.
Things that might contribute to a disrupted plan. Jim Clemente really says Jane's observation is confirmed, which really puts int question which direction the person was walking. I've always taken Jayne's word for it that the man walked from the left to the right, but if it was Totman he would have, most likely, been walking from the right to the left.
-
Things that might contribute to a disrupted plan. Jim Clemente really says Jane's observation is confirmed, which really puts int question which direction the person was walking. I've always taken Jayne's word for it that the man walked from the left to the right, but if it was Totman he would have, most likely, been walking from the right to the left.
I was watching a TV prog last night about Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer. He is possibly America's most prolific serial killer.
One of the commentators brought in to discuss/explain the case was Jim Clemente. I only know it was him because he was labelled clearly as Jim Clemente.
It was late at night. I am not familiar with the Green River case i.e. I don't know how much of the prog was docu and how much was drama. So please don't ask details about what the prog or Clemente covered.
He seemed quite affable and quite confident in front of camera. I presume those qualities may help get him appearances elsewhere.
-
I was watching a TV prog last night about Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer. He is possibly America's most prolific serial killer.
One of the commentators brought in to discuss/explain the case was Jim Clemente. I only know it was him because he was labelled clearly as Jim Clemente.
It was late at night. I am not familiar with the Green River case i.e. I don't know how much of the prog was docu and how much was drama. So please don't ask details about what the prog or Clemente covered.
He seemed quite affable and quite confident in front of camera. I presume those qualities may help get him appearances elsewhere.
Well he has made me question Jane's testimony. I'm impressed by the way he thinks. Laura Richards not so much.
-
I understand you're referring to your 'prank' theory, but surely if Gerry is literally just going to check on the kids, then chatting with Jez is just routine. There's no urgency, so he can just about chat to the natural end of a conversation with a casual acquaintance. Which he apparently did.
Jez describes a casual meeting. He is walking north on the east pavement where block 6 is, so he needs to cross to the west pavement where block 5 is as he's going to block 4, which is behind block 5. In doing that he meets Gerry, who is using that pavement to go south from block 5 to the Tapas.
Gerry's desciption includes an intentional diversion to speak to Jez. He crosses to the east pavement to do that, then crosses back again to go to the Tapas.
-
Jez describes a casual meeting. He is walking north on the east pavement where block 6 is, so he needs to cross to the west pavement where block 5 is as he's going to block 4, which is behind block 5. In doing that he meets Gerry, who is using that pavement to go south from block 5 to the Tapas.
Gerry's desciption includes an intentional diversion to speak to Jez. He crosses to the east pavement to do that, then crosses back again to go to the Tapas.
All the following is IMO based on the facts as I know them.
If I was Gerry I would be in a different frame of mind. They had that incident with Madeleine the night before where she had a tea stain on her pyjama top, and they had thought someone might be "looking after the kids while they were out". He has just been in the room the door had been moved from where he had left it, "more open" than before. Gerry IMO was fully aware of the possibility of someone hanging around the apartment, so he was in the "fight mode".
He gets out onto the street and sees someone, he approaches and finds it is someone he knows. Was his suspicions wrong? One way or the other he has to calm down and converse since he has approached Jez and Jez is a big opponent if there was to be a fight 6' 3" was the number said.
That is a problem, six foot 3 inches of trouble! No wonder he doesn't see Jane pass by.
-
All the following is IMO based on the facts as I know them.
If I was Gerry I would be in a different frame of mind. They had that incident with Madeleine the night before where she had a tea stain on her pyjama top, and they had thought someone might be "looking after the kids while they were out". He has just been in the room the door had been moved from where he had left it, "more open" than before. Gerry IMO was fully aware of the possibility of someone hanging around the apartment, so he was in the "fight mode".
He gets out onto the street and sees someone, he approaches and finds it is someone he knows. Was his suspicions wrong? One way or the other he has to calm down and converse since he has approached Jez and Jez is a big opponent if there was to be a fight 6' 3" was the number said.
That is a problem, six foot 3 inches of trouble! No wonder he doesn't see Jane pass by.
I don't think it was too dark to recognise Jez from across the street.
-
Well he has made me question Jane's testimony. I'm impressed by the way he thinks. Laura Richards not so much.
He wasn't there. Jane Tanner was ... and has been steadfast in her description of the event.
-
I don't think it was too dark to recognise Jez from across the street.
Bobby does sometimes have a whimsical, prosaic way of description.
I think Jez' intimdating stature may have been negated by the presence of his child in a buggy.
-
Bobby does sometimes have a whimsical, prosaic way of description.
I think Jez' intimdating stature may have been negated by the presence of his child in a buggy.
There could have been a machine gun in that buggy all Gerry knows. I thought you were the military type. Situation: You approach a suspicious person who is pushing a pram. Don't you think that could be a pram full of explosives as you approach your target?
-
There could have been a machine gun in that buggy all Gerry knows. I thought you were the military type. Situation: You approach a suspicious person who is pushing a pram. Don't you think that could be a pram full of explosives as you approach your target?
But the place was so safe @)(++(*
-
But the place was so safe @)(++(*
Gerry was lulled into a sense of security, but it doesn't turn out like that.
-
There could have been a machine gun in that buggy all Gerry knows. I thought you were the military type. Situation: You approach a suspicious person who is pushing a pram. Don't you think that could be a pram full of explosives as you approach your target?
That was actually the MO in some places, except they forgot that, in the main, Derry men never pushed a pram in their lives.
-
He wasn't there. Jane Tanner was ... and has been steadfast in her description of the event.
What has she said since SY said the man she saw was identifies as another MW guest?
-
What has she said since SY said the man she saw was identifies as another MW guest?
I seem to remember her saying she felt vindicated and relief. But since then, like everyone else who is a witness she has kept her own counsel in the midst of the investigations presently taking place on Madeleine's behalf.
-
I seem to remember her saying she felt vindicated and relief. But since then, like everyone else who is a witness she has kept her own counsel in the midst of the investigations presently taking place on Madeleine's behalf.
Do you have a cite for Tanner’s ‘vindicated and relief’ comment ?
-
I seem to remember her saying she felt vindicated and relief. But since then, like everyone else who is a witness she has kept her own counsel in the midst of the investigations presently taking place on Madeleine's behalf.
That was news to me.
-
That was actually the MO in some places, except they forgot that, in the main, Derry men never pushed a pram in their lives.
MO - Modus Operandi
but in the McCann case MO is usually Matt Oldfield.
So in times of trouble a man pushing a pram is suspicious. Did I get that right?
-
I don't think it was too dark to recognise Jez from across the street.
Well even if he could, does it change the situation? Something like 95% of abductions are done by family or their acquaintances.
Judas betrayed Jesus. So called Friends, can you count on them?
-
MO - Modus Operandi
but in the McCann case MO is usually Matt Oldfield.
So in times of trouble a man pushing a pram is suspicious. Did I get that right?
Absolutely. A man pushing a pram towards an army checkpoint would raise alarm bells. They swiftly moved on to bombs driven in digger buckets - not quite as discrete, but effective nonetheless.
-
Well even if he could, does it change the situation? Something like 95% of abductions are done by family or their acquaintances.
Judas betrayed Jesus. So called Friends, can you count on them?
That's right.
-
Absolutely. A man pushing a pram towards an army checkpoint would raise alarm bells. They swiftly moved on to bombs driven in digger buckets - not quite as discrete, but effective nonetheless.
Well with Gerry's connections to Ireland maybe he is not entirely relaxed about it either. I've often wondered if there isn't an IRA connection to the case.
OK if Gerry checked out Jez he still hasn't explained to the door being moved in the apartment. Was he right?
-
Well with Gerry's connections to Ireland maybe he is not entirely relaxed about it either. I've often wondered if there isn't an IRA connection to the case.
OK if Gerry checked out Jez he still hasn't explained to the door being moved in the apartment. Was he right?
Can't say. I mean, I would suggest it is very likely that Maddie would have got up at some point for any number of reasons, so the position of the door is an odd statement to make. Unless you knew it was completely closed or completely open.
-
That's right. Joey shagged Rachel IIRC.
Is that case related Rachel is actually Rachael Mampilly in the McCann case.
Who's Joey? "Joey shagged Rachel"
-
Is that case related Rachel is actually Rachael Mampilly in the McCann case.
err.....yeah....that's right [looks around sheepishly]
-
err.....yeah....that's right [looks around sheepishly]
Don't talk to a kiwi about sheep!
-
Well even if he could, does it change the situation? Something like 95% of abductions are done by family or their acquaintances.
Judas betrayed Jesus. So called Friends, can you count on them?
Keep enemies close,friends closer.
-
MO - Modus Operandi
but in the McCann case MO is usually Matt Oldfield.
So in times of trouble a man pushing a pram is suspicious. Did I get that right?
Gerry wasn't troubled in the slightest. Someone had apparently moved the children's bedroom door, but he wasn't bothered; he was quite happy to go back out and leave them.
-
Gerry wasn't troubled in the slightest. Someone had apparently moved the children's bedroom door, but he wasn't bothered; he was quite happy to go back out and leave them.
Do you believe that he suspected at that moment that someone was in the apartment and had moved the door but he wasn't "troubled in the slightest" and suspecting that this intruder would abduct his daughter, he wasn't" bothered" and " quite happily" left her to that fate?
-
Do you believe that he suspected at that moment that someone was in the apartment and had moved the door but he wasn't "troubled in the slightest" and suspecting that this intruder would abduct his daughter, he wasn't" bothered" and " quite happily" left her to that fate?
He noticed when he entered the apartment that the door to the children's bedroom was half open, rather than 10cn open as he'd left it 30 minutes earlier. He Ithought it was 'strange'. He wondered if Madeleine had gone to sleep in his bed to avoid the noise created by the twins. That wasn't the answer, she was in her bed fast asleep in the exact position she had been in when he left her.
I had a similar experience once. I always checked my children when I was going to bed, and one night I found the loft hatdh, which was in my girls' room, open. My husband was away at the time. I didn't go and get into my bed I sleot in that room with my children right underneath that open hatch. If someone was going to come out of the loft I was there to do my best to protect my children.
Gerry went back to the restaurant, even though he had no answer to why that door had moved. According to his wife he told her the children were 'doing well' and also told her he had bumped into Jez. He didn't mention the bedroom door, which he surely would have if he was concerned about it. He wasn't bothered. but he should have been imo.
-
He noticed when he entered the apartment that the door to the children's bedroom was half open, rather than 10cn open as he'd left it 30 minutes earlier. He Ithought it was 'strange'. He wondered if Madeleine had gone to sleep in his bed to avoid the noise created by the twins. That wasn't the answer, she was in her bed fast asleep in the exact position she had been in when he left her.
I had a similar experience once. I always checked my children when I was going to bed, and one night I found the loft hatdh, which was in my girls' room, open. My husband was away at the time. I didn't go and get into my bed I sleot in that room with my children right underneath that open hatch. If someone was going to come out of the loft I was there to do my best to protect my children.
Gerry went back to the restaurant, even though he had no answer to why that door had moved. According to his wife he told her the children were 'doing well' and also told her he had bumped into Jez. He didn't mention the bedroom door, which he surely would have if he was concerned about it. He wasn't bothered. but he should have been imo.
You managed to fall asleep in the belief that there might be someone up in your loft?? Incredible! How do you explain the open loft hatch to yourself now?
-
You managed to fall asleep in the belief that there might be someone up in your loft?? Incredible! How do you explain the open loft hatch to yourself now?
My point, of course, is that I took an unusual occurance seriously and took what steps I could to keep my children safe, unlike Gerry McCnn. I will pm you the whole of my atrange story.
-
My point, of course, is that I took an unusual occurance seriously and took what steps I could to keep my children safe, unlike Gerry McCnn. I will pm you the whole of my atrange story.
ok, I would say however thst an open loft hatch is less easily dismissed than a door that has moved a few inches which could be explained by air movement when the patio door was opened or Madeleine moving it by getting up and going back to her own bed.
-
ok, I would say however thst an open loft hatch is less easily dismissed than a door that has moved a few inches which could be explained by air movement when the patio door was opened or Madeleine moving it by getting up and going back to her own bed.
Gerry offered neither of those explanations though.
-
what does any of the above have to do with the podcasts...isnt it all off topic
-
Gerry offered neither of those explanations though.
In fact he specifically said that Madeleine was just as they’d left her.
As to the door being blown by the wind, if such a mundane thing had happened Gerry would have acknowledged that may have been the case instead of being surprised at the door’s movement.
-
Gerry wasn't troubled in the slightest. Someone had apparently moved the children's bedroom door, but he wasn't bothered; he was quite happy to go back out and leave them.
Maybe he was more bothered than we know. It is a matter of opinion.
-
ok, I would say however thst an open loft hatch is less easily dismissed than a door that has moved a few inches which could be explained by air movement when the patio door was opened or Madeleine moving it by getting up and going back to her own bed.
It would have taken a team of detectives to work out why the door had moved. It was put down to Madeleine getting up and then going back to sleep.
-
Don't talk to a kiwi about sheep!
How about rugby.
-
what does any of the above have to do with the podcasts...isnt it all off topic
Well Jim and Laura said they should analyse their statements. I have my doubts that the solution lies in the statements. You would end up with observations that just can't be resolved like Gerry finding the door moved.
-
How about rugby.
The Crusaders beat the Rebels 66 to nil. That was hiding.
-
The Crusaders beat the Rebels 66 to nil. That was hiding.
This is Off Topic.
-
This is Off Topic.
I was watching the game last night rather than being on the forum moderating, and I got to read the forum this morning and it was complete chaos.
-
I was watching the game last night rather than being on the forum moderating, and I got to read the forum this morning and it was complete chaos.
I'll bet watching the game was more rewarding.
-
I'll bet watching the game was more rewarding.
Personally I like a chaotic forum. It is interesting to see the tensions between the members playing out.
-
Personally I like a chaotic forum. It is interesting to see the tensions between the members playing out.
Only if they let themselves to get wound up.
-
Do you believe that he suspected at that moment that someone was in the apartment and had moved the door but he wasn't "troubled in the slightest" and suspecting that this intruder would abduct his daughter, he wasn't" bothered" and " quite happily" left her to that fate?
There was no door move until Kate's check in his first statement on 4 May 2007.
"At about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant."
"At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. He entered the bedroom, he observed the twins and he did not even notice whether Madeleine was there, as everything was calm, the shutters were closed and the door to the bedroom was ajar as usual. "After that Matt returned to the restaurant."
"At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
-
There was no door move until Kate's check in his first statement on 4 May 2007.
"At about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant."
"At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. He entered the bedroom, he observed the twins and he did not even notice whether Madeleine was there, as everything was calm, the shutters were closed and the door to the bedroom was ajar as usual. "After that Matt returned to the restaurant."
"At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Well could Matt have seen into the room if the door was ajar as usual?
-
Well could Matt have seen into the room if the door was ajar as usual?
He saw the twins breathing, which is a particularly stunning feat.
-
Gerry offered neither of those explanations though.
To whom?
-
In fact he specifically said that Madeleine was just as they’d left her.
As to the door being blown by the wind, if such a mundane thing had happened Gerry would have acknowledged that may have been the case instead of being surprised at the door’s movement.
You are forgetting one rather salient point. He was describing the scene after his child had vanished into thin air. Obviously things that seemed barely noteworthy beforehand are potentially going to take on massive significance afterwards.
-
To whom?
To anyone.
-
To anyone.
Why would he or should he? His daughter had vanished “but the moving door may have been the wind or Madeleine herself” is that what he should have said? Why?
-
Well could Matt have seen into the room if the door was ajar as usual?
Matt always said it was half-open so that is for Gerry not me lol.
-
You are forgetting one rather salient point. He was describing the scene after his child had vanished into thin air. Obviously things that seemed barely noteworthy beforehand are potentially going to take on massive significance afterwards.
I think the original speculation by Rob which triggered this discussion can be well and truly dismissed. Gerry showed no sign of being concerned on 3rd about that moving door.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10745.msg534363#msg534363
It is strange imo that he wasn't reminded of it when Kate said she found it completely open.
-
Why would he or should he? His daughter had vanished “but the moving door may have been the wind or Madeleine herself” is that what he should have said? Why?
I honestly believe the simple answer is that Maddie opened the bedroom door slightly as she went out. She may have opened the window too and pulled the shutter up for all we know before deciding to go out the front door instead.
-
I honestly believe the simple answer is that Maddie opened the bedroom door slightly as she went out.
Not a unreasonable thought.
-
getting back on topic...i listened to the latest podcast today where jim Clements referred to the disappearance as the abduction...very telling...the EX SY woman claimed jim gamble has now said he beleives maddie woke and wandered...so shes not to well informed ...other than taht ....nothing
-
getting back on topic...i listened to the latest podcast today where jim Clements referred to the disappearance as the abduction...very telling...the EX SY woman claimed jim gamble has now said he beleives maddie woke and wandered...so shes not to well informed ...other than taht ....nothing
On what issue is Laura misinformed?
-
On what issue is Laura misinformed?
gamble ahs said its a possibility not taht he thinks tahts what happenned
-
gamble ahs said its a possibility not taht he thinks tahts what happenned
Cite for what Gamble actually said please.
-
Cite for what Gamble actually said please.
I think everyone knows...its sunday here by the way...monday where you are..
-
I think everyone knows...its sunday here by the way...monday where you are..
OK but at some time after your day of rest find out what Jim Gamble did say.
-
if you dont know what gamble said you shoudnt be a mod
I study the McCann case not the Jim Gamble case.
-
Cite for what Gamble actually said please.
This article has quotes of what Jim Gamble has said recently: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/780749/madeleine-mccain-2019-disappearance-news-missing-parents-wandered-off-theory
"Despite a backlash from parents Kate and Gerry, Mr Gamble believes the hypothesis has potential." That is the wandered off theory has potential.
So we must question why Laura Richards said what Davel claims she said?
-
This article has quotes of what Jim Gamble has said recently: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/780749/madeleine-mccain-2019-disappearance-news-missing-parents-wandered-off-theory
"Despite a backlash from parents Kate and Gerry, Mr Gamble believes the hypothesis has potential." That is the wandered off theory has potential.
So we must question why Laura Richards said what Davel claims she said?
I do not believe that Madeleine Woke and Wandered. She disappeared off the face of The Earth without a trace. Whether or not she was capable of leaving the appartment isn't really the point. Too many other things don't hang together.
No doors or gates left open, no sight of her whatsoever, no blood on the streets and no sign of a body, ever.
I believe that Madeleine was targeted for some reason, hence the risks taken. Paedophiles? Definitely not. It is all to easy to take a child from the streets. This child was worth good money to someone. In My Opinion.
-
I do not believe that Madeleine Woke and Wandered. She disappeared off the face of The Earth without a trace. Whether or not she was capable of leaving the appartment isn't really the point. Too many other things don't hang together.
No doors or gates left open, no sight of her whatsoever, no blood on the streets and no sign of a body, ever.
I believe that Madeleine was targeted for some reason, hence the risks taken. Paedophiles? Definitely not. It is all to easy to take a child from the streets. This child was worth good money to someone. In My Opinion.
Good Money? how about a ball park measure... Millions were raised- which could have been extracted by kidknappers,and a lot of money was offered as a reward- so are we saying here that Maddie was worth many,many millions to a non paedophile gang? Interesting theory!
-
Good Money? how about a ball park measure... Millions were raised- which could have been extracted by kidknappers,and a lot of money was offered as a reward- so are we saying here that Maddie was worth many,many millions to a non paedophile gang? Interesting theory!
Who would value Madeleine the most?
-
Good Money? how about a ball park measure... Millions were raised- which could have been extracted by kidknappers,and a lot of money was offered as a reward- so are we saying here that Maddie was worth many,many millions to a non paedophile gang? Interesting theory!
The point is unless Madeleine is kept in seclusion, a terrible way to live, she is bound to have been identified by someone around her and for Eleanor’s theory to work not one of the individuals in the chain between the abduction and the new carers/parents would have to have been tempted by the millions put up as a reward. Is that really credible?
-
No one in their right mind was going to admit that they had taken Madeleine. And they wouldn't have been entitled to the reward anyway. That much should be obvious to anyone.
-
The point is unless Madeleine is kept in seclusion, a terrible way to live, she is bound to have been identified by someone around her and for Eleanor’s theory to work not one of the individuals in the chain between the abduction and the new carers/parents would have to have been tempted by the millions put up as a reward. Is that really credible?
I have just finished watching a 1st anniversary docudrama about MBM's disappearance.
As part of that, Al Jazeera flew to Morocco re the Rif Mountains incorrect sighting.
The docudrama stopped several people in 3 major cities in Morocco to ask them about their opinion on the Madeleine case. None of those shown had heard of Madeleine.
It appears not to have been big news in Morocco.
-
I have just finished watching a 1st anniversary docudrama about MBM's disappearance.
As part of that, Al Jazeera flew to Morocco re the Rif Mountains incorrect sighting.
The docudrama stopped several people in 3 major cities in Morocco to ask them about their opinion on the Madeleine case. None of those shown had heard of Madeleine.
It appears not to have been big news in Morocco.
And there will be other places.
-
No one in their right mind was going to admit that they had taken Madeleine. And they wouldn't have been entitled to the reward anyway. That much should be obvious to anyone.
But there would be a chain...unless you think it was one person stealing Madeleine for one couple...or one person stealing Madeleine for themselves ( wouldn’t Amelie be a better choice? )
-
But there would be a chain...unless you think it was one person stealing Madeleine for one couple...or one person stealing Madeleine for themselves ( wouldn’t Amelie be a better choice? )
If there was a chain they would all likely go to prison. And none of them would get the reward.
-
If there was a chain they would all likely go to prison. And none of them would get the reward.
Not necessarily. If they were a colleague of the abductor but not involved in the abduction.
-
Not necessarily. If they were a colleague of the abductor but not involved in the abduction.
Then they would get done for perverting the course of justice.
-
But there would be a chain...unless you think it was one person stealing Madeleine for one couple...or one person stealing Madeleine for themselves ( wouldn’t Amelie be a better choice? )
Indeed. why steal a walking talking child when a baby was avaliable. The very idea that Maddie was worth millions to someone is rather a long way off the reality spectrum.IMO
There are easier ways to make millions with less chance getting caught, and as has been mentioned there were a lot of blonde haired little girls who could have been grabbed from street/beach/ elsewhere. To suggest Maddie was in some way more precious then the others is a nonsense.
However, we should ask the question who has these millions to purchase one specific child?
-
Then they would get done for perverting the course of justice.
Not if they went to the police as soon as they found out.
-
Not if they went to the police as soon as they found out.
When is that going to be, do you think?
-
Indeed. why steal a walking talking child when a baby was avaliable. The very idea that Maddie was worth millions to someone is rather a long way off the reality spectrum.IMO
There are easier ways to make millions with less chance getting caught, and as has been mentioned there were a lot of blonde haired little girls who could have been grabbed from street/beach/ elsewhere. To suggest Maddie was in some way more precious then the others is a nonsense.
However, we should ask the question who has these millions to purchase one specific child?
What Millions?
-
Indeed. why steal a walking talking child when a baby was avaliable. The very idea that Maddie was worth millions to someone is rather a long way off the reality spectrum.IMO
There are easier ways to make millions with less chance getting caught, and as has been mentioned there were a lot of blonde haired little girls who could have been grabbed from street/beach/ elsewhere. To suggest Maddie was in some way more precious then the others is a nonsense.
However, we should ask the question who has these millions to purchase one specific child?
Indeed. To admit that the most likely outcome for Madeleine, if she has been abducted, is that she was taken by a paedophile, statistics prove that, but to admit that you have to also take on board that her parents enabled that to happen.
-
When is that going to be, do you think?
I don’t think it’s going to happen as I don’t think she was abducted. I was discussing your theory.
-
What Millions?
You were claiming that your theory is MBM was abducted, and not by paedophiles, so for hat other reason would their be apart from kidknapping- I mentioned this when milllions of pounds was available to be used as a payment for her return- nothingh forth coming. You could, if you wanted to prove your point, offer up statistics about childless couples stealing children when babies would probably be the most sought after. does anyone know of any teenager being abducted by a childless couple? I think you will find it is a baby most women seek after being told she can't have any for what ever reason.
-
You were claiming that your theory is MBM was abducted, and not by paedophiles, so for hat other reason would their be apart from kidknapping- I mentioned this when milllions of pounds was available to be used as a payment for her return- nothingh forth coming. You could, if you wanted to prove your point, offer up statistics about childless couples stealing children when babies would probably be the most sought after. does anyone know of any teenager being abducted by a childless couple? I think you will find it is a baby most women seek after being told she can't have any for what ever reason.
It depends on what the adopters might have wanted.
I never mentioned Millions. But even official adoptions can cost a lot of money with a very long wait.
Madeleine was not abducted for ransom, obviously.
-
It depends on what the adopters might have wanted.
I never mentioned Millions. But even official adoptions can cost a lot of money with a very long wait.
Madeleine was not abducted for ransom, obviously.
So you are saying Madeliene wasn't abducted for Money or by a paedo gang but that some desperate couple paid top dolla to have her brought to them- to bring her up as their own?
Lovely theory- suits the McCanns mantra- she came to no harm. no harm she is alive and loving it- so why waste millions of taxpayers money looking for her- if she is safe and happy.
-
So you are saying Madeliene wasn't abducted for Money or by a paedo gang but that some desperate couple paid top dolla to have her brought to them- to bring her up as their own?
Lovely theory- suits the McCanns mantra- she came to no harm. no harm she is alive and loving it- so why waste millions of taxpayers money looking for her- if she is safe and happy.
Yes, that is what I believe. But surely you are not advocating just helping oneself to someone else's child?
-
Yes, that is what I believe. But surely you are not advocating just helping oneself to someone else's child?
I think your hope, while commendable, is rather naive Eleanor.
-
I think your hope, while commendable, is rather naive Eleanor.
I always try to see the best in people, Faith. And it works quite well most of the time.
-
Indeed. why steal a walking talking child when a baby was avaliable. The very idea that Maddie was worth millions to someone is rather a long way off the reality spectrum.IMO
There are easier ways to make millions with less chance getting caught, and as has been mentioned there were a lot of blonde haired little girls who could have been grabbed from street/beach/ elsewhere. To suggest Maddie was in some way more precious then the others is a nonsense.
However, we should ask the question who has these millions to purchase one specific child?
Please elucidate on these easy ways to make quick millions without getting caught. I am in need of some dosh and this might come in useful.
-
Not if they went to the police as soon as they found out.
When would thst have been? “Hello, I’m a colleague of the person who abducted Madeleine McCann. Although I had nothing to do with the abduction, Jimmy just told me he did it, so please arrest him and give me the money”.
-
So you are saying Madeliene wasn't abducted for Money or by a paedo gang but that some desperate couple paid top dolla to have her brought to them- to bring her up as their own?
Lovely theory- suits the McCanns mantra- she came to no harm. no harm she is alive and loving it- so why waste millions of taxpayers money looking for her- if she is safe and happy.
Yeah, and while you’re at it don’t bother looking for stolen goods or money either, as long as the thieves who took it are enjoying it, and are happy.
-
Yes, that is what I believe. But surely you are not advocating just helping oneself to someone else's child?
NO I am not advocating any such thing. ?{)(**
I too would love that to be the case I truely do. My head says non!
"Please elucidate on these easy ways to make quick millions without getting caught. I am in need of some dosh and this might come in useful"
I would be breaking the law by telling you. So I will skip that one .
-
NO I am not advocating any such thing. ?{)(**
I too would love that to be the case I truely do. My head says non!
"Please elucidate on these easy ways to make quick millions without getting caught. I am in need of some dosh and this might come in useful"
I would be breaking the law by telling you. So I will skip that one .
You won’t be breaking the law unless you actually do it, so please do tell us all the easy ways to make millions without getting caught.
-
You won’t be breaking the law unless you actually do it, so please do tell us all the easy ways to make millions without getting caught.
OK enough of your constant futile attempts to re write what I type. I said LESS OF A CHANCE of getting caught than taking the risk an abductor took.
And no I will not be putting ideas out there to anyone- so just drop it. It is illegal and unethical to disclose such information.
-
I do not believe that Madeleine Woke and Wandered. She disappeared off the face of The Earth without a trace. Whether or not she was capable of leaving the appartment isn't really the point. Too many other things don't hang together.
No doors or gates left open, no sight of her whatsoever, no blood on the streets and no sign of a body, ever.
I believe that Madeleine was targeted for some reason, hence the risks taken. Paedophiles? Definitely not. It is all to easy to take a child from the streets. This child was worth good money to someone. In My Opinion.
Spot on.
She was stolen to order.
A certain something about her.
.... and I think it is her precious bloodline
-
OK enough of your constant futile attempts to re write what I type. I said LESS OF A CHANCE of getting caught than taking the risk an abductor took.
And no I will not be putting ideas out there to anyone- so just drop it. It is illegal and unethical to disclose such information.
@)(++(*
“There are easier ways to make a million and less chance of getting caught” yet you simply can’t name one of them. Is it illegal to say “robbing a bank”, or “becoming a high class prostitute”? I’m sure you could say so wthout being arrested, but are they really easier and less risky options...? *%87
-
Spot on.
She was stolen to order.
A certain something about her.
.... and I think it is her precious bloodline
(&^&
Irish? really OMG
-
@)(++(*
“There are easier ways to make a million and less chance of getting caught” yet you simply can’t name one of them. Is it illegal to say “robbing a bank”, or “becoming a high class prostitute”? I’m sure you could say so wthout being arrested, but are they really easier and less risky options...? *%87
I can name them I just won't. get it and drop it- it is off topic which is what supporters do to derail the thread!
-
(&^&
Irish? really OMG
Went back way beyond the Irish period To Biblical periods and beyond. Perhaps you didn't know that?
Think Cannanite / Phoenician/ Templar and a few more places /groups too tricky atm to mention
..... But generally I like the Irish anyway
All in my opinion
-
You won’t be breaking the law unless you actually do it, so please do tell us all the easy ways to make millions without getting caught.
That is way off topic now.
-
That is way off topic now.
spoilsport. 8(8-))
-
spoilsport. 8(8-))
I would allowed it for I too would love to earn a million, except I'm moderator and have to keep it on topic.